Search Results

1. [2007] NZEmpC CC 19/07 Sefo v Sealord Shellfish Ltd [pdf, 37 KB]

   ...or any part of it to elect to have the matter heard by the Court. [10] Although the heading to s179 refers to “Challenges to determinations of Authority” this is the only reference to a challenge. Section 179 does not confer a right of appeal or challenge in the usual sense of those words. However, the word “challenge” has come to be used for the process of electing to have a matter heard. [11] The starting point under s179 is that a party to a matter before the...

2. [2011] NZEmpC 124 Amien v Reipen and Others interlocutory [pdf, 69 KB]

   ...and it is appropriate for the Court to have regard to those principles recognised by the courts in earlier decisions relating to the grant of Mareva injunctions. Thus, in Shaw v Narain, 3 Justice Gault in delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal emphasised the flexibility of the jurisdiction and noted: There must be a good arguable case that the person seeking the injunction will succeed in a claim against the owner of the property to be frozen. There must be a real risk...

3. [2010] NZEmpC 56 EBIIWU & Ors v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd [pdf, 28 KB]

   ...successful. [2] The statutory provision by which the Court can order costs is cl 19 of Schedule 3 to the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act). The Court has a very broad discretion (although exercisable within constraints imposed by the Court of Appeal1) and the Court’s equity and good conscience jurisdiction also applies. 1 Victoria University of Wellington v Alton-Lee [2001] ERNZ 305; Binnie v Pacific Health Ltd [2002] 1 ERNZ...

4. [2010] NZEmpC 48 DAS Transport Ltd v Kirkwood [pdf, 26 KB]

   ...intention to challenge is minimal. [19] There is no prejudice to Mr Kirkwood arising from the period between the expiry of the 28 days and the bringing to his notice of the intention to challenge. Although, as with most litigants who learn of an appeal brought right at the end of the period within which it may be by right and asserting prejudice by reason of delay of finality, Mr Kirkwood cannot in truth be said to have been prejudiced by the short delay, at least in a way that can...

5. Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill [pdf, 151 KB]

   ...1 R v Oakes (1986) 26 DLR (4th) 200 (Canadian Supreme Court); S v Bhulwana; S v Gwadiso (1995) 2 SACR 748 (South African Constitutional Court) and R v Sin Yau-Ming [1992] LRC (Const) 547 (Hong Kong Court of Appeal). 2 Hansen v R [2007] NZSC 7 at [123]. iii. is the limit in due proportion to the importance of the objective? Is the objective sufficiently important? 13. The objective of the temporary drug order provisions is to enable a respon

6. [2009] NZEmpC AC 24/09 Turners and Growers Ltd v Marshall [pdf, 26 KB]

   ...[3] After hearing counsel in support of the application, I decided that one of the essential statutory ingredients for granting such an order was not established on the evidence. Because, however, the plaintiff should have opportunities to both appeal against that refusal and to apply without notice for other injunctive orders, I prohibit publication of this judgment beyond the plaintiff and its solicitors and counsel for the period of 7 days from today’s date or such further perio...

7. [2012] NZEmpC 213 Turner v Talleys' Group Ltd [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...the probability of a result, it is simply not possible to say that the plaintiff has so little prospect of success that she should be required to pay security for costs at a level which will prevent her from pursuing her case where the decision appealed from does not address a number of obvious, relevant and important legal issues. [17] The fact that the plaintiff’s challenge will raise these issues for argument and decision counts against the defendant’s assertion that the plai...

8. CAC303 v Patricia Kerr [2015] NZREADT 33 [pdf, 130 KB]

   ...courtroom at Thames on 25 March 2015. We contemplate issuing a decision on penalty soon after the said deadlines for submissions on penalty. 6 [33] 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 ______________________________...

9. Waaka - Te Manawa o Tuhoe A block (2014) 103 Waiariki MB 2 (103 WAR 2) [pdf, 267 KB]

   ...that the proceedings have tracked. In a technical sense I believe that the doctrine could apply as against Mr Waaka. I do not accept that this is a case where successive applications could be made as was dealt with by the New Zealand Court of Appeal recently. 2 Here the normal rules of estoppel will apply. [13] I prefer however, to deal with the matter on the basis of a series of cases which deal with the situation where parties are linked to the earlier case culminating in the...

10. [2014] NZEmpC 69 H v A Limited Interlocutory [pdf, 77 KB]

    ...unjustified dismissal. 1 On the same date, however, the Authority nevertheless made a limited order prohibiting publication of such information until 20 January 2014, allowing the plaintiff time to inform his family and to exercise his rights of appeal. The plaintiff challenged this determination on 13 January 2014. [4] On 17 January 2014 the Court made the following interim orders. 5. Pursuant to cl 12 of Schedule 3 to the Employment Relations Act 2000 I make an order prohibi...