Search Results

1. Ministry of Justice annual report 2018-19 [pdf, 5.2 MB]

   ...business groups: Corporate and Digital Services Operations and Service Delivery Policy Group Sector Group Strategy, Governance and Finance Joint Venture Business Unit We support the judiciary to deliver court services for the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court, District Courts and Specialist Courts. We support 29 tribunals, authorities and committees that help New Zealanders resolve disputes. We contract with over 2,000 community-based and non-governmental service providers to supp...

2. [2007] NZEmpC 37A/07 Yong t/a Yong and Co Chartered Accountants v Chin [pdf, 20 KB]

   ...determination remain undisturbed. [8] The Court has a wide discretion to make such orders as to costs as it thinks fit. That discretion must, however, be exercised in a principled way. The essential principles have been established by the Court of Appeal in a series of judgments including that in Binnie v Pacific Health Limited [2002] 1 ERNZ 438. The accepted approach is that an appropriate starting point for an award of costs is two thirds of the costs actually and reasonably...

3. [2008] NZEmpC WC 1A/08 Progressive Meats Ltd v Meat and related Trades Workers Union of Aoteaoroa Inc [pdf, 17 KB]

   ...reasonable contribution to costs is not two-thirds of costs actually and reasonably incurred. For this reason, judgments such as Binnie v Pacific Health Ltd [2002] 1 ERNZ 438 and Health Waikato Limited v Elmsly [2004] 1 ERNZ 172 in the Court of Appeal can be distinguished as having involved different sorts of claims by individual employees against their employers. This, by contrast, is in the nature of a dispute between a union and an employer, resolution of which required intervent...

4. [2008] NZEmpC CC 3/08 South Tranz Ltd & Ors v Strait Freight Ltd [pdf, 18 KB]

   ...it may be the practice of the Court not to award costs in test cases, that is by no means an inflexible rule. We remain of the view that costs should be awarded and should follow the event. [7] We adopt the approach approved by the Court of Appeal in cases such as Victoria University of Wellington v Alton-Lee [2001] ERNZ 305 and Binnie v Pacific Health Ltd [2002] 1 ERNZ 438. We take a starting point of two thirds of the costs actually and reasonably incurred by the plaintiffs, w...

5. CAC303 v Patricia Kerr [2015] NZREADT 72 [pdf, 116 KB]

   ...our powers to award compensation under s 110(2)(g) of the Act, the licensee must forthwith pay $10,703.62 to the complainants Gordon and Ruth Christopher. [14] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, we record that any person affected by this decision may appeal against it to the High Court by virtue of s 116 of the Act. ______________________________ Judge P F Barber Chairperson ______________________________ Mr J Gaukrodger Member ______________________________...

6. AE v Secretary for Justice 9 December 2014 NZRA 000007 [pdf, 43 KB]

   ...a. He did take into account the applicant’s involvement in the higher category proceedings referred to, but did not consider that it demonstrated substantial and active involvement. The involvement in a PAL 2 criminal proceeding and a criminal appeal was limited to some research, drafting of documents, the briefing of one witness, and cross-examination of one witness. b. That the applicant’s reference to the actions described in para 12(c) were not recorded in the case examples fo...

7. Mihaka v Housing New Zealand Corporation (Referral back to Human Rights Commission) [2016] NZHRRT 8 [pdf, 41 KB]

   ...complains of the decision by Housing New Zealand Corporation (HNZC) to terminate his tenancy. The 90-day notice issued by HNZC was followed by the grant on 24 April 2015 by the Tenancy Tribunal of a possession order in favour of HNZC. Mr Mihaka has appealed that decision to the District Court. Those proceedings have been stayed pending 1 [This decision is to be cited as: Mihaka v Housing New Zealand Corporation (Referral back t...

8. CAC 20004 v Li and Ors [2014] NZREADT 77 [pdf, 23 KB]

   ...allow Mr Rea’s application on behalf of Ms Wang for recall of our said decision herein of 1 September 2014, and that application is hereby dismissed. [12] Pursuant to s.113 of the Act, we record that any person affected by this decision may appeal against it to the High Court by virtue of s.116 of the Act. ______________________________ Judge P F Barber Chairperson ______________________________ Ms N Dangen Member ______________________________ Ms C...

9. Kumandan v CAC404 [2016] NZREADT 21 [pdf, 73 KB]

   ...the hearing when there is new, different or amplified evidence the Tribunal will of course be prepared to revisit its decision. Accordingly the Tribunal dismisses the application under s 115. [10] The Tribunal draws to the parties’ attention the appeal provisions of s 116 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008. ______________________________ Ms K Davenport QC Chairperson ______________________________ Mr G Denley Member ______________________________ Ms N D...

10. [2014] NZEmpC 5 Nee Nee and Nathan v C3 Ltd costs [pdf, 57 KB]

    ...accommodation, car parking and mileage for one of its witnesses to travel from Tauranga to Auckland and remain in Auckland to give evidence. [7] The Court is guided in the exercise of its discretion on costs by three decisions of the Court of Appeal. 2 This was recently reiterated by the Court in Tan v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd. 3 [8] On the basis of those authorities the two primary principles to be applied regarding orders for costs in this Court are, first, that cos...