Search Results

1. [2012] NZEmpC 20 White & Others v Reserve Bank of New Zealand [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...Clarke SCJ, delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court, affirmed: “The essential question in each case is what were the terms of the agreement.” 4 Lord Clarke expressed agreement with the judgment of Lord Justice Aikens in the Court of Appeal stating: [32] Aikens LJ stressed at paras [90]-[92] the importance of identifying what were the actual legal obligations of the parties. He expressly agreed with Smith LJ’s analysis of the legal position in Szilagyi’s 5 cas...

2. [2012] NZEmpC 84 New Zealand Educational Institute (Inc) v Secretary for Education [pdf, 159 KB]

   ...in some cases: generally, the Authority (and the Court) will allow parties the opportunity to comply non-coercively and, given the Secretary’s public role, it would be surprising if she did not accept the verdict of the Authority or otherwise on appeal or appeals therefrom. There is no suggestion of which I am aware that the Secretary would do otherwise. [52] If, as a result of this judgment, there is a perception that s 137 might be inadequate to enforce collective agreements in...

3. [2006] NZEmpC 61A/06 NZ Tramways and Public Passenger Transport Employees Union & Anor v Transport Auckland and Cityline (NZ) Ltd [pdf, 71 KB]

   ...entitle employees to a fifth week of annual holiday would be inconsistent with the common law principle on the separability of promises mentioned in ACI and in Marshall v NM Financial Management Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 1461 and confirmed by the Court of Appeal [1997] 1 WLR 1527. To construe the cea in the context of the 2003 Act to require 5 weeks instead of the 4 would be to leave the additional weeks of leave unsupported by any consideration and would substantially alter the nature of t...

4. Swanson - Waotu South C No 6B (2014) 110 Waiariki MB 187 (110 WAR 187) [pdf, 235 KB]

   ...Judge Clark summarised the applicable principles: 9 [40] The general principles applicable to a change of status have developed over time. There are a number of decisions of the Māori Land Court, Māori Appellate Court, High Court and Court of Appeal which are of relevance. … [41] In a recent decision, Te Whata – Waiwhatawhata 1A2B6 Lot 1 DP 168554 (2008) 125 Whangarei MB 294 (125 WH 294), Judge Ambler comprehensively identified the relevant legal principles. I summarise...

5. [2015] NZEmpC 201 Owen v CE of the Department of Corrections [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...a determination, or part of a determination, about whether the Authority may follow or adopt a particular procedure. [21] These provisions have been considered on several occasions. In Employment Relations Authority v Rawlings the Court of Appeal stated: 7 We are satisfied that s 179(5) and 184(1A) are intended to prevent challenge or review processes disrupting unfinished Authority investigations. But once the investigation is over and a determination has been made, there i...

6. CAC 10020 v McDonald [2013] NZREADT 89 [pdf, 57 KB]

   ...[55] It would seem, as endorsed by counsel for the Authority in submissions subsequent to the hearing and related to the defendant’s said email of 9 October 2013, that the defendant’s only course, if she does not accept our findings, is to appeal our decision on guilt. However, we have not yet finally fixed penalty and, of course, we welcome submissions from the defendant on that aspect. [56] Accordingly, we direct the registrar to arrange a telephone conference between the Cha...

7. Clark v Trustees of Poukawa 9G and others trust (2011) 6 Takitimu MB 285 (6 TKT 285) [pdf, 136 KB]

   ...3 Perenara v Pryor – Matata 930 (2004) 10 Waiariki Appellate MB 233 (10 AP 233). 4 Marino – Repongaere 4G (Part) (2004) 34 Tairawhiti Appellate MB 98 (34 APGS 98). 5 Apatu v Puna – Owhaoko C 1 and 2 (2010) Maori Appellate Court MB 34 (APPEAL 34). 6 Apatu v Puna – Owhaoko C 1 and 2 (2010) Maori Appellate Court MB 34 (APPEAL 34) at 37. 7 Ellis v Faulkner – Poripori Farm A Block (1996) 57 Tauranga MB 7 (57 T 7) at 7–8. 8 Ellis v Faulkner – Poripori Farm A Block (199...

8. [2013] NZEmpC 228 Edwards v The Board of Trustees of Bay of Islands College [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...there are strong arguments for the maintenance of confidentiality unless waived by Ms Woolf. My decision on the facts of this case should not be seen as creating a class of privilege for union officials. As the recent judgment of the Court of Appeal in M v L [[1999] 1 NZLR 747] illustrates, there are many difficult problems in a class approach to the matter and that would [be] no less so in respect of union officials in employment law. Each case, including this, must be determined...

9. Sen v Kiff [2012] NZWHT Auckland 3 [pdf, 156 KB]

   ...report was dated 24 July 2009 but the Reliant quote is more recent, dated 11 February 2011. [55] In addition Mr and Mrs Sen have claimed $20,000.00 general damages each for themselves and their daughter, a total of $60,000.00. The Court of Appeal has stated that $25,000.00 per dwelling is to be taken as a guide for awards of general damages in leaky homes cases.3 I accept Mr and Mrs Sen’s evidence that they and their daughter have suffered mentally and physically from their...

10. [2017] NZEnvC 193 Doctors Flat Vineyard Ltd v Central Otago District Council [pdf, 4.5 MB]

    BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND Decision No, [2017] NZEnvC193 of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an appeal pursuant to s 120 of the Act DOCTORS FLAT VINEYARD LIMITED & RUBICON HALL ROAD LIMITED (ENV-2017-CHC-16) Appellants CENTRAL OTAGO DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge J R Jackson Environment Commissioner C J Wilkinson Environment Commissioner K A Edmonds Hearing: In Chambers at Christchurch Date of Decision...