Search Results

1. LCRO 210/2018 RF v TG (27 August 2020) [pdf, 231 KB]

   ...scope of review [28] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:1 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for that...

2. LCRO 136/2021 YL v OB (28 February 2022) [pdf, 249 KB]

   ...discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:1 1 Deliu v Hong [2012] NZHC 158, [2012] NZAR 209 at [39]–[41]. 9 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise...

3. [2021] NZEmpC 95 Concrete Structures (NZ) Ltd v Rottier [pdf, 365 KB]

   ...On the facts, health and safety considerations may prove pivotal – but the analysis must take into account all the circumstances including any procedural issues. 11 Air New Zealand Ltd v Samu [1994] 1 ERNZ 93 (NZEmpC) at 95, confirmed on appeal in Samu v Air New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 ERNZ 636 (CA). 12 Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, ss 16, 61(3)(g) and 97; Employment Relations Act 2000, ss 103(j)(ii) and 110A. 13 Hooper v Coca-Cola Amatil (NZ) Ltd [2012] NZEmpC 11, (20...

4. LCRO 35/2021 ZN v YM and XL (16 December 2021) [pdf, 237 KB]

   ...scope of review [26] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:1 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for tha...

5. L v EQC [2021] CEIT-2019-0036 [pdf, 411 KB]

   ...there was fraud, however, the evidence needs to be strong. For instance, if the evidence is circumstantial, any inferences must strongly point towards there being a single likely explanation for the events.5 [28] In Taylor v Asteron, the Court of Appeal considered the remedies available if fraud is found. The Court considered fraudulent claims cases and found that:6 (a) the rule against fraud is a term requiring honesty in connection with claims, implied by law into insurance contr...

6. E v IAG New Zealand Ltd (3rd decision – quantum) [2019] CEIT-2019-0013 [pdf, 596 KB]

   1 IN THE CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES INSURANCE TRIBUNAL CEIT-0013-2019 IN THE MATTER OF CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES INSURANCE TRIBUNAL ACT 2019 BETWEEN PFWE AND JEE Applicant AND IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED First Respondent AND AND INTERNATIONAL STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) Second Respondent QBE INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED (REMOVED) Third Respondent AND

7. LCRO 200/2020 SK and WP v AQ (27 October 2023) [pdf, 292 KB]

   ...scope of review [51] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:12 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for th...

8. [2023] NZEmpC 237 Total Property Services (Canterbury) Ltd v Crest Commercial Cleaning Ltd [pdf, 377 KB]

   ...Crest’s case [70] Mr McGuinness’ submissions emphasised that the purpose of pt 6A was to preserve the ongoing employment of vulnerable employees and needed to be considered accordingly. He drew on observations to that effect by the Court of Appeal in Pacific Flight Catering v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd, which while decided before amendments were made to pt 6A in 2015, still captures its purpose.22 21 Section 69OEA(3). 22 Pacific Flight Catering v LSG Sky Chefs New Zea...

9. [2024] NZEmpC 198 Fredricsen and anor v Air New Zealand Ltd and Air New Zealand Ltd v Fredricsen and anor [pdf, 305 KB]

   ...explanation? [56] If the first question is established by the employee, the onus shifts to the employer to either explain the disparity or else explain why their actions were justified.22 In respect of the second and third question, the Court of Appeal noted in Samu v Air New Zealand Ltd:23 … if there is an adequate explanation for the disparity, it becomes irrelevant. Moreover, even without an adequate explanation disparity will not necessarily render a dismissal unjustifiab...

10. LCRO 153/2023 GP v DM (29 November 2024) [pdf, 253 KB]

    ...scope of review [62] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:3 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for that...