Search Results

1. [2022] NZEmpC 82 Halse v Employment Relations Authority [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...filed written submissions and Mr Halse also filed an affidavit in support of his application. Accordingly, it is appropriate to now issue a judgment. [6] As noted by Mr Halse, I represented WorkSafe New Zealand in the High Court and Court of Appeal in proceedings brought against it by Ms Osborne.5 It is a matter of public record that the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal.6 No criticism was made of counsel and the case is completely unrelated to Mr H...

2. [2022] NZEmpC 80 A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Samra Holdings Ltd T/A Te Puna Liquor Centre [pdf, 226 KB]

   ...135, [2017] 1 NZLR 310 at [2] in relation to the principle generally; in relation to access to Court documents, see the discussion in Commissioner of Police v Doyle [2017] NZHC 3049; and Berry v Crimson Consulting Ltd [2017] NZHC 3026 upheld on appeal in Crimson Consulting Ltd v Berry [2018] NZCA 460, [2019] NZAR 30. (e) the principle of open justice (including the encouragement of fair and accurate reporting of, and comment on, court hearings and decisions): (f) the fre...

3. A Trustees v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2022] CEIT-2019-0078 [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...claim for damages.3 Contractual claims for as incurred legal and expert costs, such as clauses 17.1 and 17.2 of the RSMA, are prima facie enforceable contractual obligations. In Watson & Son Ltd v Active Manuka Honey Association the Court of Appeal stated that the recovery of legal costs under an indemnity provide an alternative to the costs jurisdiction of the Court.4 The question is whether the wording of the indemnity clearly shows agreement to an alternative basis for recovery...

4. [2022] NZEmpC 58 GF v Comptroller of the New Zealand Customs Service [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...in accordance with s 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000. 5 Smith v Attorney-General [2020] NZHC 836. 6 Benge v Air New Zealand Ltd [2011] NZEmpC 26 at [16]-[18]. [16] I return to principle, as enjoined to do by the Court of Appeal in Price Waterhouse v Fortex Group Ltd:7 In marginal cases, it is better to avoid generalities and rules of thumb, and to return to principle. The pleader and the Court simply ask “in the circumstances of this claim, is that statem...

5. Lawyers-and-Conveyancers-Lawyers-Practice-Rules-Amendment-Regulations-2022FINAL.pdf [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...be based on application process to be developed by the NZLS. 11 An application process will be established, setting out the evidence required to support a lawyer’s application. This process will include notification of outcomes and procedures for appeal. 12 The information will be removed from the publicly available register but remain on record with NZLS. When a member of the public has genuine reasons to access the work details of a lawyer, which have been removed from the register, NZLS...

6. [2023] NZEnvC 022 Selwyn District Council v Thorne [pdf, 450 KB]

   ...at the Site, and make a vehicle crossing application. If the application for resource consent or existing use certificate is declined, then Mr Thorne shall have 30 working days from the date of declination (and resolution of any objections or appeals) to achieve compliance with Order 8(b); or (b) relocate the entrance point for the vehicle crossing entrance point for the driveway at least 10m from the 5 intersection and seal the driveway in accordance with the Council...

7. Edwards - Aramiro and Section 1 Survey Office Plan 61863 (2023) 254 Waikato Maniapoto MB 86 (254 WMN 86) [pdf, 522 KB]

   ...the circumstances. The court may have regard to how the encroachment came to be, the conduct of the parties and any unjustified enrichment due to the wrongly placed structure (s 324). [16] In Barry Park Investments Limited v Johnson, the Court of Appeal noted that in terms of relief for wrongly placed structures, “the scope of remedies available under the [Property Law] Act are extensive”.3 The Court considered that while relief was required to be just and equitable, “orders...

8. [2023] NZEmpC 111 Lu v Young [pdf, 226 KB]

   ...Higgs, something more than disappointment at the result in the Authority is required to justify a stay of execution.6 [12] Turning to the factors set out above, there is no evidence that, if the stay is not granted, the plaintiffs’ right of appeal will be rendered ineffectual. I accept that the challenge has been brought and will be pursued in good faith. [13] There is no effect on third parties; nor are there novel or important questions involved in the case. Further, there...

9. Henderson v Henderson - Pakowhai 5B2 (2024) 109 Tākitimu MB 54 (109 TKT 54) [pdf, 292 KB]

   ...being unsuitable to hold office.” This approach is consistent with how examples in legislation are to be interpreted, per s 23 of the Legislation Act 2019. 1 Henderson v Brooking – Wharekahika A47 [2023] Māori Appellate Court MB 17 (2023 APPEAL 17). (d) If one or more of the grounds in s 240(1)(b) are met, the Court must then assess what is desirable for the proper execution of the trust. What is “desirable” does not mean what is necessary, and whether removal...

10. [2024] NZEmpC 154 Hu v Passion Fresh Ltd [pdf, 180 KB]

    ...Checkmate Precision Cutting Tools Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 2; [2015] ERNZ 196. the subsequent expense incurred by both parties would have been avoided.7 This submission drew heavily on Bluestar Print Group (NZ) Ltd v Mitchell.8 The Court of Appeal in that case cautioned that a “steely” approach is required in dealing with the cost consequences of settlement offers made without prejudice save as to costs.9 [18] Bluestar does not provide particular guidance to assist in asses...