Search Results

1. [2010] NZEmpC 22 The Chief of Defence Force v Ross-Taylor [pdf, 55 KB]

   ...Mitchell & Booker Palais de Danse Ltd6. The test depends upon whether the alleged employer had the right to control the person alleged to be the employee. Ms Holden correctly submitted that the control test has been diminished by the Court of Appeal’s decision in Cunningham v TNT Express Worldwide (NZ) Ltd7. Ms Swarbrick submitted that because the defendant was governed by set rosters for days and hours of work she was subject to control by the plaintiff. [34] I prefer...

2. [2010] NZEmpC 30 Minhinnick V NZ Steel Ltd [pdf, 53 KB]

   ...Nevertheless it has applicability in light of the issue which has been raised in respect of the expired warning. Judge Travis at para [49] of the decision stated as follows: [49] Further, the authorities cited by counsel, including Reid in the Court of Appeal, make it clear that the policy does not necessarily have to be followed to the letter. This flexibility in considering the actions of an employer which has failed to follow its own policy has been enhanced by the introduction...

3. [2010] NZEmpC 79 Silver Fern Farms Ltd v North [pdf, 50 KB]

   ...Act]. The personal grievance described by him in the 12 July 2006 letter concerns Mr North’s rehabilitation rights and the company’s rehabilitation obligations under the IPRC Act. The plaintiff submits that Mr North had rights of review or appeal about these matters under ss 6 and 68 of that legislation but chose not to exercise those rights except to the extent that he invoked the Corporation’s complaint procedure. Decision of challenge [30] The defendant submits that 14...

4. [2008] NZEmpC AC 4/08 NZ Airline Pilots Association Inc v Air New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 54 KB]

   ...Judgment: 19 March 2008 JUDGMENT OF THE FULL COURT Introduction [1] This case concerns the remedies accruing to members of the plaintiff as a result of its claim under the Holidays Act 2003. Having been considered by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court the case was remitted to the Employment Court. [2] The Employment Court had originally considered the matter as a full Court and issued its judgment on 9 March 2005 ([2005] ERNZ 180). The Judges who hav...

5. [2013] NZEmpC 18 Pathways Health Ltd v Moxon [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...rejected the offer and the costs of both parties had been wasted by going to trial. On this basis, costs might be awarded against such plaintiffs even though they had succeeded to an extent at trial. This principle has been endorsed by the Court of Appeal as particularly appropriate in employment litigation. 9 [19] In more recent times, this principle has been expanded so that offers to settle made by plaintiffs may be taken into account to increase an award of costs where the...

6. [2013] NZEmpC 34 Baker v St John Central Regional Trust Board [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...Baker was not obliged to accept work, as she accepted in evidence. Indeed from time to time she declined work even though she had previously indicated her availability. In Clark v Oxfordshire Health Authority 7 the English and Wales Court of Appeal held that a nurse, who had no obligation to accept hours offered (and likewise the employer had no obligation to offer work), was effectively a casual employee. The nurse had worked casual engagements for the Health Authority for over...

7. [2015] NZEmpC 121 Morgan Schofield v Transit Coachlines Ltd [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...etc.; (authorized) absence from work etc.; a period of such absence." 11 [31] The expression "unpaid leave" was considered by the Industrial Relations Court of South Australia in Flinders Ports Pty Ltd v Woolford, 12 which was an appeal from a decision of an Industrial Magistrate ordering the appellant to pay the respondent just over $5,000 for unpaid long service leave. The respondent was a casual port worker and there were gaps of as much as a fortnight, and up...

8. Henry v Wood - Part Whakanekeneke 1B (2014) 85 Taitokerau MB 175 (85 TTK 175) [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...Sections 6 & 91 Land Trust (2005) 155 Aotea MB 269 (155 Aot 269), Eriwata v Trustees of Waitara SD Sections 6 & 91 Land Trust (2005) 26 Whanganui Appellate Court MB 192 (26 WGAP 192) at [8], Nicholls v Nicholls – Part Papaaroha 6B [2013 APPEAL 598], Thompson v Oppert –Wharekawa 5B South 4B1 and Wharekawa 5B South 4B2B2B2 (2006) 109 Hauraki MB 21 (109 H 21) and Trustees of Okahukura 8M2C2C2B v Christensen (2006) 176 Aotea MB 42 (176 AOT 42) http://www.brookersonline.co.nz...

9. Kupa Snr v DJ Whitfield and Sons Ltd – Omahu 4C Section 6 (2015) 45 Takitimu MB 219 (45 TKT 219) [pdf, 439 KB]

   ...rehearing, the court may affirm its former determination, or may vary or annul that determination, and may exercise any jurisdiction that it could have exercised on the original hearing. (6) When a rehearing has been granted, the period allowed for an appeal to the Maori Appellate Court shall not commence to run until the rehearing has been disposed of by a final order of the court. [31] In addition rule 8.1 of the Māori Land Court Rules 2011 provides: 8.1 Rehearing (1) An ap...

10. Peters v Eruera - Kaikoura No.4 (2011) 40 Waiariki MB 206 (40 WAR 206) [pdf, 131 KB]

    ...none so that all the 8 children would have some ownership of the block. Most of them paid Mac Eruera back but others did not. In June 1992, George Roberts applied to the Māori Land Court to partition the block but was unsuccessful. He then appealed to the Māori Appellate Court in November 1992 and was also unsuccessful. In August 1993, the Māori Land Court issued an order vesting ownership of Kaikoura 4 in Mr George Roberts and Mr Mac Eruera. It also issued a trust order app...