Search Results

1. [2006] NZEmpC CC 9A/06 T & R Distributors Ltd v Grimes [pdf, 21 KB]

   ...should be ordered to pay two-thirds of the total costs incurred by the plaintiff in respect of the proceedings in both the Authority and the Court. There is an obvious difficulty with that submission. While the well known decisions of the Court of Appeal have suggested that two-thirds of actual and reasonable costs incurred is an appropriate starting point for fixing costs in the Court, that approach is not appropriate for fixing costs in the Authority: - see the decision of the f...

2. [2012] NZEmpC 178 Rimene v P J Doherty & Natusch Group Ltd [pdf, 56 KB]

   ...Doherty cannot now rely on his assertions that his situation should be treated any differently to any other represented person dealing with the Court. 7. The respondent submits that it would be inequitable and unjust to allow the applicants’ appeal to proceed without allowing its own application to proceed. Both parties have filed their elections out of time in error and both sought to correct the matter without delay. [6] As noted in my contemporaneous judgment in WRC 14/12,...

3. [2012] NZEmpC 2 Bourne and Ors v New Zealand Merchant Service Guild Industrial Union of workers Inc [pdf, 51 KB]

   ...there is a single issue or all issues in a case are decided in favour of one party, applying those principles is relatively straightforward. Where, as in this case, each party has had a measure of success, it can be problematic. As the Court of Appeal observed in Health Waikato Ltd v Elmsly 2 : [39] It is not usual in New Zealand for costs to be assessed on an issue by issue basis, albeit that it is common enough, where both parties had a measure of success at trial, for no order...

4. [2013] NZEmpC 180 Dolev v Netafim Australia Pty Ltd [pdf, 53 KB]

   ...business of the Court, nor for that matter the defendant. [7] I do not accept the argument put forward by the defendant as to the effect of the Calderbank letter. [8] The issue of costs of course is discretionary. On the basis of Court of Appeal authority binding this Court in respect of awards of costs the rule generally applying is that costs follow the event and an award in the vicinity of two thirds of actual and reasonable costs expended will be awarded. In this...

5. [2016] NZEmpC 10 Fredericks v VIP Frames and Trusses Ltd [pdf, 79 KB]

   ...For VIP it is submitted that costs should lie where they fall on the basis that each of the parties has been successful to some extent. 3 [6] The principles as to costs in the Employment Court are well established in decisions of the Court of Appeal. 4 Costs will generally follow the event and be awarded to the successful party. The starting point for the quantum of such costs is two-thirds of actual and reasonable costs incurred. However, in a situation where each of the par...

6. Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee v Parlane [2010] NZLCDT 18 [pdf, 70 KB]

   ...However little turns on the mechanism involved. 10. It is clear, that the Review Officer had the powers of the Committee when sitting in review in any event. An ancillary question arises as to what would have transpired had Mr Parlane not appealed, however the Tribunal reminds itself that the New Zealand Law Society has a power to seek review from the Review Officer in any event (Section 194(2)(d)) to which end the matter would inevitably have come before the Review Officer....

7. BORA New Organisms And Other Matters Bill [pdf, 19 KB]

   ...provide that proceedings for a pecuniary penalty order cannot be completed if related criminal proceedings have been commenced or if the person has been convicted of an offence for a breach for which an order is sought. 9. The majority of the Court of Appeal in the leading case on 26(2), Daniels v Thompson [2]made it clear that section 26(2) must be read as referring: Only to criminal proceedings relating to an offence against the law, for which the person has been tried. What is prohi...

8. BORA Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill [pdf, 201 KB]

   ...claims should not be the subject of further litigation. The Crown is satisfied there was the appropriate mandate to enter into such an agreement. (See explanatory note pages 3-4.) This assessment is also consistent with the decision of the Court of Appeal in New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [2008] 1 NZLR 318. 8.2 I also note the view of the United Nations Human Rights Committee that the exclusion of judicial review under the Fisheries Settlement, in the context of a negotia...

9. NO & NTO v Hakaoro [2013] NZIACDT 38 (24 June 2013) [pdf, 38 KB]

   ...to deal with a series of complaints against a particular practitioner. [9] Mr Sutton adjusted his argument to advance the proposition it was the findings in the particular case that created the appearance of bias. [10] He referred to the Court of Appeals decision in Muir v CIR 18 PRNZ 630, and also made reference to Stuart-Menteath v Registrar of Private Investigators and Security Guards (CIV- 2010-412-000306 5/11/10), and JEC No.2 Ltd v Official Assignee at Hamilton [2013] NZHC 1352....

10. BORA Employment Relations Amendment Bill [pdf, 279 KB]

    ...days. If the employer withholds consent, the employer must provide the reason for withholding consent. 4. The right to freedom of association is wide, and encompasses the right to form and participate in any kind of organisation. [1] The Court of Appeal has noted that an employer coming between employees and their representatives may impact on the right to freedom of association. [2] 5. The Bill, however, only creates the prospect of short temporal interference with the right of uni...