Search Results

1. [2014] NZEmpC 159 Franix Construction Ltd v Tozer [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...That judgment is clearly distinguishable on its facts from the present case and, if anything, reaffirms the judicial observation that such cases are “intensely factual” and determined accordingly. 6 [45] The earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal in Telecom South Ltd v Post Office Union (Inc) 7 was referred to in the judgment in Ross-Taylor. Telecom South supports Mr Tozer’s position on the strongest argument for Franix addressing the remuneration arrangements in this case...

2. CAC20004 v Vessey [2015] NZREADT 10 [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...a contribution to the costs of the Authority of $1,000 and to this Tribunal of a further $1,000, and a compensation payment to the complainants of $2,000. [67] 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 G Denley Member ______________________________ Ms C San...

3. [2014] NZEmpC 49 Patel v OCS Ltd [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...refers to pressure and threats made against her. I was not drawn to Ms Patel’s evidence in relation to the interactions she says she had with Mrs Vaifoou. I preferred Mrs Vaifoou’s evidence as to what transpired. [59] The Court of Appeal in Salt v Fell 2 confirmed that subsequently discovered misconduct may be taken into account when making an assessment of remedies, observing that: 3 Everyone accepts that subsequently discovered misconduct might result in reinst...

4. [2014] NZEmpC 93 Prime Range Meats Limited v McNaught [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...to work effectively disposes of the principal issues raised in Mr McNaught's cross-challenge. Ms Lodge submitted that Mr McNaught's alleged constructive dismissal claim fell into the third category of conduct described by the Court of Appeal in Auckland etc Shop Employees Union v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd, namely, conduct involving a breach of duty by the employer which leads an employee to resign. 5 In counsel's words: 10. We submit the procedural failings of the pla...

5. Linton v Keswick LCRO 95 / 2009 (25 August 2009) [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...particularly stressful event. Having heard from Ms Linton I am satisfied that the conduct of Mr Keswick in, without notice, refusing to act further caused her anxiety and distress to such a degree that compensation is appropriate. The Court of Appeal has recognised that such distress damages are compensatory in nature: Paper Reclaim Ltd v Aotearoa International Ltd [2006] 3 NZLR 188 (CA) at para 171. [62] Such an order could be made pursuant to s 156(1)(d) of the Lawyers and Conv...

6. Head Heights Limited v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 24 [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...Honour was not required to resolve the question of whether a building consent could be obtained for targeted repairs. [29] The same question was considered recently by the High Court in Chee v Stareast Investment Limited.5 Chee involved an appeal from a 4 Body Corporate 185960 v North Shore City Council (Kilham Mews). 5 Chee v Stareast Investment Limited [2012] NZHC 133. Page | 10 decision by the Tribunal t...

7. BORA Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill [pdf, 217 KB]

   ...the view that new section 103(1B) does not appear to be prima facie inconsistent with section 27(1) because we do not consider that the decision to suspend the payment is a "determination" for the purposes of section 27(1). The Court of Appeal in Chisholm v Auckland City Council11 held that a determination for the purposes of section 27(1) must be of an adjudicative character. The decision of the Commissioner to temporarily suspend the payment in this context is not adjudicat...

8. Chand and Kumari v Prakash [2012] NZIACDT 85 (3 December 2012) [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...power to regulate its own procedure (section 49(1)). However, for a professional disciplinary body in contemporary New Zealand to operate without its decisions being available to the public would be a truly exceptional situation. [108] The Court of Appeal in R v Liddell [1995] 1 NZLR 538 at 546 per Cooke P said, in relation to the question of name suppression: [T]he starting point must always be the importance in a democracy of freedom of speech, open judicial proceedings, and the right...

9. EV v IG LCRO 111/2013 (8 September 2015) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...threshold required for further action. A history of driving with excess breath alcohol and/or some other surrounding circumstance would usually be necessary to warrant further disciplinary action. [66] In Bolton v The Law Society the English Court of Appeal made an observation similar to that made by the High Court of Australia in Ziems, and added that the balancing exercise was to be made “… by the Tribunal as an informed and expert body, on all the facts of the case”.26 [...

10. LG v Hakaoro [2013] NZIACDT 23 (03 April 2013) [pdf, 168 KB]

    ...decision. Publication [104] The Tribunal orders the name of the complainant and any information that may identify her will not be published or disclosed, except as necessary to allow the parties to obtain professional assistance and pursue rights of appeal. [105] Subject to the preceding limitation, this decision will be published with the names of the parties after five working days, unless any party applies for orders not to publish any aspect. DATED at WELLINGTON this 3 r...