Search Results

1. [2009] NZEmpC CC 19/09 T L Harvey Ltd V Duncan [pdf, 43 KB]

   ...confidently said that, if the matter had been handled appropriately, the outcome would have been the same. Such a proposition is often advanced in cases involving redundancy. Ms Ironside relied on this proposition, and the decision of the Court of Appeal in Aoraki Corporation Ltd v McGavin [1998] 1 ERNZ 601, to suggest that, even if the dismissal was unjustifiable, Ms Duncan ought not to be awarded remedies for loss of her job. In my view this is not such a case. Ms Duncan’s p...

2. [2008] NZEmpC AC 3/08 B W Murdoch Ltd v Horn (Labour Inspector) [pdf, 45 KB]

   ...employer only when work is available: (ii) the employer's rosters or other similar systems: (iii) the reasonable expectations of the employer and the employee that the employee would work on the day concerned. [32] In a recent Court of Appeal decision4, Chambers J, delivering the decision of the majority, held that the question of whether a day would otherwise be a working day is an intensely practical one. The factors employers and employees are bound to take into account...

3. [2012] NZEmpC 48 Carter Holt Harvey Limited v McAuley [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...workers. Why should individuals not be allowed to challenge a dismissal at the end of the term if there was no good reason for the term, and the effect is to override the personal grievance provisions? [17] This passage was referred to by the Court of Appeal in examining the section in Norske Skog Tasman Ltd v Clarke 3 when it noted that the Parliamentary history was of limited assistance and, in relation to the aforementioned speech, described this as “the only Parliamentary spe...

4. CAC20002 v Brar [2015] NZREADT 59 [pdf, 490 KB]

   ...the usual way that he is a fit and proper person to hold such a licence. We understand that the necessary procedures will focus on that issue in any case. [38] 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. MS~ --- Member

5. CAC20007 v Jarman [2015] NZREADT 66 [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...Jarman’s licence be cancelled and she is fined $7,500 to be paid to the Registrar of the Authority at Wellington within three calendar months of this decision. [59] 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 _________________________...

6. McCallum v The Māori Trustee of Whanganui - Estate of Ngapiki Waaka Hakaraia [2014] Chief Judge's MB 541 (2014 CJ 541) [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...will-maker’s husband pre-deceased her. The court therefore considered whether by necessary implication, words could be inferred into the will to fully express the will-maker’s intention and enable the disposition to take effect. 8 The Court of Appeal considered that this approach was only legitimate 7 Re Whitrick [1957] 1 WLR 884 (CA); see also Re Smith: Veasey v Smith [1948] Ch 49; and Re Jensen, above n 6. 8 At 887. 2014...

7. Trustees in the Section 14 Block XIII Tautuku Trust v Cairns - Part Section 3 Block XIII Survey District (2015) 29 Te Waipounamu MB 48 (29 TWP 48) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...the said term hereby granted at the same rent and containing the like covenants and provisos as are herein contained 14 Biel v Hall – Opepe Farm Trust [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 535 (2011 APPEAL 535); Murupenga – Re Proprietors of Te Hapua 42 Incorporation (1972) 2 Taitokerau Appellate MB 72 (2 APWH 71). 15 Laws of New Zealand Lessor and Lessee (Reissue 1) (online ed) at [80]. 16 Laws of New Zealand, above n 15, at [78]....

8. Tahata v Tahata - Proprietors of Ngāwhakatutu A1A (2015) 49 Tairawhiti MB 251 (49 TRW 251) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...flaws amount to unsatisfactory performance. [7] In our view unsatisfactory performance must be measured against the principles in the Act. They are contained in the preamble and section 2. [8] The key principles for the purposes of this appeal are that the Court should encourage: (a) retention of Maori land, in the hands of its owners; (b) the utilisation and development of that land; and (c) control of that land by the owners, through their representatives. [9] Wh...

9. Recording Industry Association of New Zealand v Telecom NZ 4451 [2013] NZCOP 15 [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...and that it must consider the three matters listed at subclause (3)(a) – (c) of the Regulation. The Tribunal now turns to consider each of those matters. Regulation 12(3)(a) – the flagrancy of the Infringement [52] The New Zealand Court of Appeal has addressed the meaning of “flagrancy” of copyright infringement, in the context of the making of “additional damages” awards under s.121(2) of the Copyright Act 1994.1 Those cases show that “flagrant” copyright infringemen...

10. Kemp - Pouto Topu A (2012) 51 Taitokerau MB 277 (51 TTK 277) [pdf, 146 KB]

    ...6 Eriwata v Trustees of Waitara SD Section 6 and 91 Land Trust (2005) 15 Whanganui Appellate MB 192 (15 WGAP MB 192) and Te Hokowhitu v Proprietors of Matauri X (2010) 2010 Māori Appellate Court MB 566 (2010 Appeal 566). 7 Ibid. 51 Taitokerau MB 285 [35] The test to ascertain whether the learned judge properly exercised his discretion whether to grant the injunction or not, is that which applies to permanent injunctions. [36] Mr Taylor