Search Results

1. Sutherland - Succession to Henare Arapeti Sutherland [2024] Chief Judge's MB 1311 (2024 CJ 1311) [pdf, 287 KB]

   ...mistake or omission. 3 Ashwell – Rawinia or Lavinia Ashwell (nee Russell) [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209 (2009 CJ 209) at [15]. 4 Tau v Nga Whānau o Morven and Glenavy – Waihao 903 Section IX Block [2010] Māori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167) at [61]. 2024 Chief Judge's MB 1320 [20] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the power under s 44(1) of the Act falls into two parts:5 The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “er...

2. [2024] NZEmpC 238 Preece v Synlait Milk Ltd [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...2022 was relied upon, but this was later amended to 21 March 2022, being four weeks after the letter of termination was sent. 6 See for example Creedy v Commissioner of Police [2006] ERNZ 517 (EmpC) at [28]–[30]. This point was not challenged on appeal. 7 Pike v Nelmac Ltd [2024] NZERA 461 (Member Beck). 8 At [40]–[43]. 9 New Zealand Automobile Assoc Inc v McKay [1996] 2 ERNZ 622 (EmpC). than that alleged.10 It was also suggested that s 34 may be used to consider the...

3. Hawira v Pomana - Succession to Te Au Pomana [2024] Chief Judge's MB 2004 (2024 CJ 2004) [pdf, 401 KB]

   ...that standard’s inherent flexibility that takes into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.12 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [15] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the power under s 44(1) of the Act falls into two parts:13 The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “erroneous in fact and law because of any mistake or omission on the part of the...

4. [2024] NZREADT 41 – CAC 2103 v Jones Lang Laselle Ltd (29 October 2024) [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...the Act and the Audit Regulations by failing to record funds in the trust ledger and reconcile accounts. The Tribunal imposed a penalty of $7,500. [42] They also referred to the case of Burnett v Real Estate Agents Authority,8 where Mr Burnett appealed against the Committee’s finding of unsatisfactory conduct under s 72 of the Act. Mr Burnett’s agency had failed to comply with reg 15 of the Audit Regulations. Mr Burnett had failed to send reconciliations for almost every mont...

5. [2025] NZEmpC 15 TradeZone Industrial Group Ltd v Stanton [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...entered into the settlement agreement if it had been aware of the alleged breaches, s 149(3)(ab) of the Act states the terms of a settlement agreement may not be cancelled under ss 36 to 40 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017. The Court of Appeal made obiter remarks on that provision in TUV v Chief of New Zealand Defence Force:7 We note in passing that s 149(3)(ab) may have the surprising, and presumably unintended, consequence of preventing cancellation of a settlement ag...

6. Harrison - Succession to Mere Ngamai [2025] Chief Judge's MB 1334 (2025 CJ 1334) [pdf, 773 KB]

   ...that standard’s inherent flexibility that takes into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.2 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [11] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the power under s 44(1) of the Act falls into two parts:3 The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “erroneous in fact or in law because of any mistake or omission on the part of the c...

7. Tehei - Succession to Taiparoro Hirini [2025] Chief Judge's MB 1356 (2025 CJ 1356) [pdf, 819 KB]

   ...that standard’s inherent flexibility that takes into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.3 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [17] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the power under s 44(1) of the Act falls into two parts:4 The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “erroneous in fact or in law because of any mistake or omission on the part of the co...

8. Ihaka v Chapman - Succession to Parekura Kenana Ihaka [2025] Chief Judge's MB 1872 (2025 CJ 1872) [pdf, 349 KB]

   ...that standard’s inherent flexibility that takes into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.18 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [13] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the power under s 44(1) falls into two parts:19 The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “erroneous in fact or in law because of any mistake or omission on the part of the court or the...

9. Smith v Symes - 3167 SH 2 and others (2025) 135 Tairāwhiti MB 97 (135 TRW 97) [pdf, 273 KB]

   ...incorporated or unincorporated body under the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 or the Takeovers Act 1993. (emphasis added) [24] The current application engages ss 240(1)(b)(i) and 240(1)(b)(vi). 135 Tairāwhiti MB 106 [25] The Court of Appeal in Henderson v Brooking confirmed that the test for removal under s 240(1)(b) involves two steps:3 (a) First, the Court must be satisfied that one of the prescriptive grounds under s 240(1)(b) are met. (b) Secondly, the Court mu...

10. [2025] NZEmpC 274 Hussain v Auckland Transport [pdf, 226 KB]

    ...by recognising that employment relationships are built on a legislative requirement for good faith behaviour. It is also achieved by acknowledging and addressing the inherent inequality of power in employment relationships. [6] The Court of Appeal has stated that the approach to an application for an interim injunction is well established.3 The applicant must first establish that there is a serious question to be tried or, put another way, that the claim is not vexatious or friv...