Search Results

1. [2007] NZEmpC CC 13A/07 Abernethy v Dynea NZ Ltd [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...undertook to speak to the plaintiff about it and to come back to Mr Reed. [11] Mr Climo met the plaintiff and his wife on 16 February and told them that Mr Reed was not happy with the 10 February letter and considered that it amounted to an appeal and that Mr Reed said that he would set the letter aside. Mr Climo told the plaintiff that the letter was too strong and may have damaged the plaintiff’s relationship with Dynea and, if the case was reopened, there was the possibility...

2. [2007] NZEmpC WC 34/07 Crook v Sovereign Services Ltd [pdf, 76 KB]

   ...Crook. The plaintiff bears the onus of proof. It is clear that all employment agreements have terms implied into them which impose duties on employers to take reasonable steps to maintain a safe workplace, a duty which as noted by the Court of Appeal in Attorney-General v Gilbert3 is informed and given content by the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992. [10] Section 6 of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 imposes general duties on employers. The duties relevant t...

3. [2010] NZEmpC 120 Musa v Whanganui DHB & Anor [pdf, 83 KB]

   ...employment agreement by his employer, the Board, to which Mr Solomon may have been a secondary party under s 134(2). [77] The position is not saved for the plaintiff by judgments such as Peacock v NZ Performance etc Union.2 In that case the Court of Appeal found that the receiver of a company might be liable personally for a penalty for breach of an award pursuant to s 202 of the Labour Relations Act 1987. The essential finding by the Labour Court and the Court of Appeal in Peac...

4. [2008] NZEmpC CC 4A/08 Sefo v Sealord Shellfish Ltd [pdf, 86 KB]

   ...circumstances a decision to suspend summarily and without inquiry of the affected employee will need to be justified as that term is defined now in s103A of the Act. [34] The severity of suspension from employment was recognised by the Court of Appeal almost 25 years ago in a case involving a probation officer, Birss v Secretary for Justice [1984] 1 NZLR 513. In Birss Richardson J wrote at p521: Suspension is a drastic measure which if more than momentary must have a devastating e...

5. [2012] NZEmpC 211 Service and Food Workers union Nga Ringa Toa & Page v Sealord Group Ltd [pdf, 262 KB]

   ...earlier position that such evidence was only admissible when the words of the agreement were ambiguous or unclear. Indeed, the current state of the law appears to be that in all cases such reference is possible and even desirable. The Court of Appeal has developed the following approach in contract cases. One looks first at the words used — they must obviously be the starting point — and then at the surrounding circumstances to make sure that the first impression of the meaning...

6. Ali v Wang [2015] NZIACDT 2 (22 January 2015) [pdf, 256 KB]

   ...2013-009-001684, 28 January 2014). The two decisions are essentially decisions considering facts, in the High Court both parties took the position that they would not support the District Court’s analysis of the facts; the High Court allowed the appeal on that basis. Accordingly, the decisions do not take the matter beyond the facts of that case. [56] The observation by the District Court, that when something is truly beyond a person’s control it does not trigger professional discip...

7. Paraire v Paraire – Part Mangatawa 10 (2015) 105 Waikato Maniapoto MB 67 (105 WMN 67) [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...in the shed. Otherwise it would have been totally unreasonable to expect Mr Paraire, a man of limited financial resources, to expend such a large amount of money on improving the shed. The law [63] In the case of Gillies v Keogh, the Court of Appeal referred to what are known as the five probanda required to be shown by a party seeking to rely upon the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. 29 [64] Richardson J noted that there had been a trend away from the strict application of...

8. [2013] NZEmpC 82 Tan v Morningstar Institute of Education Ltd t/a Morningstar Preschool [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...Employment Relations Act and, in particular, s 103A in 2004 and as amended in 2010, did affect the previous law about justifications for dismissal on grounds of redundancy but not to the fundamental extent of setting aside everything that the Court of Appeal propounded in GN Hale. [39] I record my complete agreement with the way the Chief Judge has explained the requirements of s 103A in a redundancy dismissal and note it is entirely in accord with the views expressed about tha...

9. [2016] NZEmpC 39 Fox v Hereworth School Trust Board Costs [pdf, 281 KB]

   ...been unable to do so. The plaintiff’s application extends also to costs in the Employment Relations Authority because, although it found in the Hereworth School Trust Board’s (the Board’s) favour, that determination 2 has been reversed on appeal by this Court. [2] The Authority ordered Mrs Fox to pay the Board $21,000 as a contribution towards the defendant’s costs of a three-day Authority investigation in September 1 Fox...

10. La Grouw as Trustee of the GJ Peacocke Trust v Rantin & MRA Architects Ltd [2011] NZWHT Auckland 8 [pdf, 178 KB]

    ...doors leading onto the deck, and Page | 11 membrane failure on the deck. DID MR WATSON BREACH HIS DUTY OF CARE TO MS LA GROUW? [25] In North Shore City Council v Body Corporate 188529 & Ors (Sunset Terraces),1 the Court of Appeal upheld Heath J‟s conclusion that councils, in issuing building consents, and designers, in preparing the plans, are entitled to assume that a reasonable builder would have access to, and rely on, the manufacturer‟s specifications,...