Search Results

1. [2012] NZEmpC 64 Wade v Hume Pack-N-Cool Ltd [pdf, 76 KB]

   ...proceedings were discontinued by him on 6 August 2008. In 2011, he attempted to set aside the discontinuance but his application to do so was dismissed by a judgment of this Court issued on 27 May 2011. 3 [6] Mr Wade subsequently sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Employment Court’s judgment. The Court of Appeal refused Mr Wade’s application for leave in a judgment issued on 29 August 2011. 4 [7] Mr Wade then issued further proceedings in the Employmen...

2. [2015] NZEmpC 160 Shanmuganathan v PowerNet Ltd [pdf, 139 KB]

   ...as to costs, and to order PowerNet to pay the sum of $3,500 to Mr Shanmuganathan, being the normal daily tariff adopted by the Authority. [12] I turn now to consider the position as to costs in the Court. It is well established from Court of Appeal decisions that the Employment Court is required first to determine whether costs incurred by a successful party were reasonably incurred, and then after an appraisal of all relevant factors, decide at which level it is reasonable for t...

3. Jackman v CAC 10010 & Cussen & Hale [2011] NZREADT 29 [pdf, 94 KB]

   BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2011] NZREADT 29 READT 59/11 IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under s.111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 BETWEEN PAUL JACKMAN Applicant AND COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE (CAC 10010) First respondent AND DIANA CUSSEN and WILLIAM HALE Second respondents MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL Judge P F Barber - Chairperson Mr J Gaukrodger - Member Mr G Denley - Member HEARD at WELLINGTON on 13 Oct...

4. Jackman v CAC 10100 & Anderson [2011] NZREADT 30 [pdf, 93 KB]

   BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2011] NZREADT 30 READT 061/11 IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under s.111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 BETWEEN PAUL JACKMAN Applicant AND COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE (CAC 10100) First respondent AND DAVID ANDERSON Second respondent MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL Judge P F Barber - Chairperson Mr J Gaukrodger - Member Mr G Denley - Member HEARD at WELLINGTON on 13 October 2011 DATE OF...

5. [2014] NZEmpC 218 Puna Chambers Inc v Christensen interlocutory [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...provides that: Except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or as provided in section 179, no determination, order, or proceedings of the Authority are removable to any court by way of certiorari or otherwise, or are liable to be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed, or called in question in any court. [8] He submitted that this provision made it plain that once the Authority had dealt with a matter it could not be revisited in that forum or in this Court, except in lim...

6. [2015] NZEmpC 2 Tomo v Checkmate Precision Cutting Tools Ltd costs [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...approach to orders for security for costs adopted in a number of cases in this Court, requiring exceptional circumstances before such an order will be made. 12 This can be contrasted with the policy considerations identified by the Court of Appeal in relation to costs awards in Victoria University of Wellington v Alton- Lee, where it was said that: 13 … a monetary judgment will often be of little practical moment to a successful party unless the losing party is required to mak...

7. Wano v Ngati Hineuru Iwi Incorporated (2013) 24 Takitimu MB 56 (24 TKT 56) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...NHII to act as an agent in negotiations concerning the settlement of claims for breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. 1 Pue v Nga Hapu o Nga Ruahine Iwi Inc (2011) Māori Appellate Court MB 577 (2011 APPEAL 577) 2 21 Takitimu MB 277 (21 TKT 277) 24 Tākitimu MB 58 [7] He also argued that while a mandated body holds the right to enter into negotiations on behalf of its constituents that right is not unconditional....

8. LCRO 240-2015 OB v LC [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...and scope of review [19] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:2 the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for tha...

9. Te Au v The Descendants of Aperahama Hutoitoi - Taukihepa (Tītī Islands) (2017) 46 Te Waipounamu MB 236 (46 TWP 236) [pdf, 238 KB]

   ...‘Taukihepa or Long island’, but that there were no grounds for recognising Heretatua as a separate manu. It was acknowledged during the hearing of that application that Aperahama Hutoitoi was entitled to rights in Taukihepa.5 Mrs Wright sought to appeal that decision, but there was no basis for her to do so as there is no ability to appeal a s 45 application.6 [12] In 2014 the applicant sought an ex parte injunction prohibiting the descendants of Aperahama Hutoitoi from exercising...

10. LCRO 55/2017 L DA and O DA v UE [pdf, 150 KB]

    ...scope of review [21] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:1 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for that...