Search Results

1. National Standards Committee 1 v Palmer [2023] NZLCDT 13 (28 April 2023) [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...that is not its purpose. We also bear in mind that any suspension can bring disruption for clients. We note, however, that in this case these matters have already largely been 14 Above n 13, at [108]. 15 [1982] 2 NSW LR 1 at 6 (Court of Appeal of New South Wales). 13 addressed. There is certainly no need for the two-week delay sought by counsel at the penalty hearing. [53] In this case the Standards Committee has sought a period of suspension in the range of 18 m...

2. [2024] NZEmpC 105 Watkins v Highmark Homes Ltd Interlocutory Judgment [pdf, 281 KB]

   ...the claim, the Court could consider ordering a lower sum than that applied for. That concession indicates to me that Highmark Homes is not using this application to stifle Ms Watkins’ claim. [37] In McLachlan v MEL Network Ltd, the Court of Appeal stated: “defendants … must be protected against being drawn into unjustified litigation, particularly where it is over-complicated and unnecessarily protracted.”23 Counsel for Highmark Homes submitted that the description fits t...

3. [2024] NZEmpC 76 Al-Bustanji and Jenner v Corrections Association of New Zealand Inc  [pdf, 257 KB]

   ...the applicants had made their own complaint which was also being dealt with at the same time. [39] Possible sanctions under r 12 include: no further action, a warning, suspension for a period or expulsion from CANZ. Rule 12 contains a right to appeal which would be heard by two or more officers of the union. [40] On 17 April 2024, the solicitors for the applicants wrote to Mr du Plessis as president, raising concerns about his involvement in the meetings on 13 and 14 May 2023,...

4. [2024] NZEmpC 29 E Tū Inc v New Zealand Steel Ltd [pdf, 278 KB]

   ...receive. 10 Aviation and Marine Engineers Assoc Inc v Air New Zealand Ltd [2013] NZEmpC 172 at [71] – [72]; New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Assoc Inc v Air New Zealand Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 168, [2014] ERNZ 709 at [14] and [17]; not doubted on appeal – Air New Zealand Ltd v New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association Inc [2016] NZCA 131, [2016] 2 NZLR 829, (2016) 15 NZELR 105 at [76], and New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Assoc Inc v Air New Zealand Ltd [2017] NZSC 111, [2017] 1 NZLR...

5. [2024] NZREADT 25 - CAC 2107 v RCG Reality Ltd (29 July 2024) [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...fine of $14,000 to the Authority within 20 working days of this decision. 24 AJS Rental Realty Ltd, above n 10, at [24]. 15 [71] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116, setting out the right of appeal to the High Court. ___________________ Ms C Sandelin Deputy Chairperson ___________________ Mr G Denley Member ___________________ Ms F Mathieson Member

6. CAC 2106 v Hu [2024] NZREADT 36 (23 September 2024) [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...ORDERS [55] Mr Hu is: 1. Censured. 2. Ordered to pay the sum of $25,000 to the Authority within one month of this decision. [56] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116, setting out the right of appeal to the High Court. PUBLICATION [57] Having regard to the interests of the public in the transparency of the Tribunal and knowing of wrongdoing by licensees, it is appropriate to order publication of this decision naming the licensee a...

7. [2025] NZEmpC 93 CG v Calendar Girls NZ Ltd [pdf, 264 KB]

   ...<www.employmentcourt.govt.nz>. 23 CG v Calendar Girls NZ Ltd EMPC Wellington 395/2024, 17 February 2025 at [1(e)]. 24 Shaw v Bay of Plenty District Health Board [2020] NZEmpC 146 at [18]. [46] The Court was referred to a judgment from the Court of Appeal in E v R, in the criminal jurisdiction about whether a warning should invariably be given to juries about the risks of relying on demeanour to assess credibility.25 The issue was also considered by the Supreme Court i...

8. Reti v Smith - Part Lot 7 Deposited Plan 3351 and Part Lot 8 Deposited Plan 3351 - Petane Marae (2024) 112 Tākitimu MB 261-277 (112 TKT 261) [pdf, 308 KB]

   ...– Waiwhetu Pā No 4 (2014) 319 Aotea MB 166 (319 AOT 166); Rātima v Sullivan – Tataraakina C (2015) 41 Tākitimu MB 102 (41 TKT 102); and Tata v Martin – Waiwhakaata 3E 4C Lot 2A (Hiiona Marae) [2020] Māori Appellate Court MB 166 (2020 APPEAL 166). 112 Tākitimu MB 268 [15] There are two exceptions. Expenses must be reasonably incurred. First, some trustees were reimbursed travel and accommodation expenses to attend an All Blacks game in Auckland in 2023. Althoug...

9. [2024] NZEmpC 222  Courage & Ors v The Attorney-General & Ors   [pdf, 264 KB]

   ...place. That leads to difficulties, which I have already alluded to. 5 Employment Relations Act 2000, ss 3(1)(ii) and 189. 6 See E Tū Inc v Rasier Operations BV [2022] NZEmpC 192, [2022] ERNZ 966 at [83]-[90]. Upheld by the Court of Appeal: Rasier Operations BV v E Tū Inc [2024] NZCA 403. 7 Pilgrim (No 2), above n 2, at [41]. 8 At [53]. Where did the plaintiffs undertake their work? [12] The plaintiffs undertook work within the Gloriavale Community’s structur...

10. [2024] NZEnvC 271 Auckland Council v Sharma [pdf, 321 KB]

    ...[10] In order to make a costs order against a legally aided person, exceptional circumstances must apply. In this case, the Council submits that exceptional circumstances apply. It relies on Laverty v Para Franchising Ltd, where the Court of Appeal held that exceptional circumstances are not limited to that person’s conduct of litigation:8 We would not, however, confine the issue of exceptional circumstances to cases where the aided party’s conduct of the litigation warranted...