Search Results

1. Wild v Ministry for Primary Industries (Strike Out) [2024] NZHRRT 12 [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...dealt with in accordance with s 98 of the Privacy Act 2020. Section 98 is not a mere technicality. It limits the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to matters that have been dealt with by the Privacy Commissioner in the manner it prescribes. As the Court of Appeal confirmed in Guo v Culpan, s 105 does not allow the scope of proceedings in the Tribunal to be expanded beyond their proper limits.9 [16] Nor does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to review whether the Privacy Commissioner’s inves...

2. [2024] NZEmpC 254 Rookes v Tillmans Fine Furniture Ltd [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...Alternatively, a challenge may be about part of the determination, specifying any errors of fact or law alleged to have been made.11 The Act and Employment Court Regulations 2000 do not provide for what may be called in other jurisdictions a cross-appeal (or cross-challenge), enabling a defendant to respond with a challenge that would otherwise be out of time. [21] Tillmans’ challenge was limited, crafted so that it preserved those parts of the determination where it succeeded...

3. LCRO 1/2023 EL v OX (17 December 2024) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...his fees as modest, and rejects any suggestion that they should be refunded. Nature and scope of review [32] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:8 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determination are entitled to a review based on the LCRO’s own opinion rather than on deference to the view of the Committee. A review by the LCRO is informal, inquisitorial and robust. It invol...

4. [2024] NZEmpC 253 Johnston v Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...to be the arbiter of fact in the first instance. [37] Mr Russell also submitted that the Court should only become involved after the Authority has investigated the matter. I accept that removal will lead to the loss of an automatic right of appeal through the loss of the right to challenge. However, that is a matter that affects both parties equally and is a neutral factor for the purposes of this assessment. Further, it is an outcome that is specifically contemplated by the Act...

5. 2016 archive

   ...sexual violation cases where more than two complainants allege a sexual violation offence against the aided person are now an automatic inclusion criteria the case plan has been shortened, questions are clearer and more relevant a new case plan for HCC appeal cases has been developed. The HCC webpage has been updated to reflect these changes From 1 April 2016 all new cases entering into the HCC framework should use the updated case plans. It is not mandatory to transition existing cases on to...

   Located in:

   1. About >
   2. Lawyers & service providers >
   3. Legal aid lawyers >
   4. Whats New for lawyers providing Legal Aid

6. Appearing in court - what you need to know

   ...will be required to stand whenever the judge enters or leaves the courtroom. A judge of the High Court must be addressed as Your Honour, Sir (male) or Ma’am (female).  If you want to refer to another judge: a judge of the High Court, Court of Appeal or Supreme Court is referred to as Justice [Surname] a judge of the District Court is referred to as Judge [Surname] Anyone addressing a judge, or being spoken to by a judge, should stand up. Don’t interrupt when the judge is speaking. It...

   Located in:

   1. Courts >
   2. Going to court >
   3. Going to court without a lawyer >
   4. Representing yourself in a criminal case in the High Court

7. 2017 Decisions of public interest

   ...disparity surveyed – “truly parallel circumstances” considered – analysis of disparity case-specific – standard of “sufficient similarity” – strike-out application dismissed - whether orders for discovery should be stayed pending outcome of appeal – orders stayed. [2017] NZEmpC 95 Fraser v McDonalds and Doran v Carrick (Judgment of the Full Court, 4 August 2017) SECTION 67D AVAILABILITY PROVISION – whether ‘flexible shift’ arrangement was availability clause – IEAs inc...

   Located in:

   1. Employment Court >
   2. Judgments >
   3. Decisions of public interest

8. [2025] NZEmpC 133 Burgess v Tutton Sienko and Hill Partnership (Interlocutory Judgment (reissued) of Judge KG Smith 1 July 2025) [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...security for costs stifling Mr Burgess’ challenge. She did so by referring to the conundrum facing Courts discussed by the Supreme Court in Reekie v The Attorney- General.11 That case was primarily concerned with providing security for costs on an appeal but contains comments that might be more generally applied. The Court’s concern in Reekie was about the possibility of a meritorious claim by an impecunious plaintiff being prevented with unsatisfactory consequences for access t...

9. Auckland Standards Committee v Holmes [2011] NZLCDT 31 [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...response to a question from the Tribunal, Mr Pidgeon said in his opinion the offending in this matter was less serious than that of W in the recent High Court case1 which related to breach of an undertaking. In that case the NZLS had successfully appealed a decision of the Tribunal which had determined that the conduct had not reached the threshold of misconduct. The High Court found W was guilty of negligence or incompetence in his professional capacity that has been of such degre...

10. [2025] NZEmpC 146 RDJ v SGF [pdf, 232 KB]

    ...Having been introduced on 1 March 2017 by s 14 of the Employment Relations Amendment Act (No 2) 2016. 8 High Court Fees Regulations 2013, reg 18; District Courts Fees Regulations 2009, reg 8; Family Courts Fees Regulations 2009, reg 7; Court of Appeal Fees Regulations 2001, reg 5; Supreme Court Fees Regulations 2003, reg 5. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2000/0250/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM5500300 https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2000/0250/latest/link.a...