Search Results

1. [2011] NZEmpC 7 Smith v Life to the Max Horowhenua Trust [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...contending that the defendant was estopped from contesting the implicit finding of the Authority that the plaintiff‟s employment was of indefinite duration or at least for a term of six months. Counsel submitted that, “the partial de novo appeal should be limited to the parameters outlined in the Statement of Claim and in Judge Couch‟s Minute.” [9] The hearing had been set down for one day only commencing at 9.30 am. I had indicated through the Registrar that I wished to...

2. Deputy Registrar - Taheke 23A and Taheke 23B (2012) 39 Taitokerau MB 264 (39 TTK 264) [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   ...Ramsey Road. [6] Subsequently, Fiona Reihana-Ruka applied for a rehearing. In my decision of 13 May 2010 3 I granted a rehearing but concluded that my earlier decision of 31 July 2009 should be affirmed. [7] My decision was then successfully appealed in part: Reihana-Ruka – Taheke 23A and 23B 4 . The Māori Appellate Court disagreed with the appellant’s contention that the area of Taheke 23A should be one acre rather than the two acres ordered by the Court in 1976. The App...

3. [2014] NZEmpC 75 Dumolo v Lakes DHB [pdf, 73 KB]

   ...Dumolo v Lakes District Health Board [2014] NZEmpC 40. [3] Both Miss Buckett and Mr Peploe have referred me to the established principles on awards of costs, which bind this Court and are contained in three main decisions of the Court of Appeal. 2 The general approach arising from those principles is that costs follow the event and that the starting point in the quantification process is that the party against whom costs are awarded should contribute two thirds of actu...

4. [2014] NZEmpC 160 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...proceedings, there have been other lengthy and hard-fought cases in the Employment Relations Authority and this Court arising out of these events. There continue to be equally hard-fought proceedings between PRI and LSG in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, which are now before the Supreme Court. Ms Alim is supported, both morally and financially, as plaintiff in these proceedings, by her former employer, PRI. [4] Ms Alim issued her proceedings for a personal grievance (unjus...

5. Mr D v REAA [2013] NZREADT 36 [pdf, 56 KB]

   ...but each case must be analysed in terms of its particular facts and factors. Such decisions abide by such case authorities as Lewis v Wilson & Horton Ltd [2000] 3NZLR 546 (CA) where Her Honour Elias CJ said: “In R v Riddell ... this Court of Appeal declined to lay down any code to govern the exercise of a discretion conferred by Parliament in terms which are unfettered by legislative prescription. But it recognised that the starting point must always be the importance of freedom...

6. Studer - Rangitaiki Allotment 28 C1 (2014) 97 Waiariki MB 294 (97 WAR 294) [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...for partition is the full bench of the High Court decision Brown v Maori Appellate Court, which is reported at [2001], 1NZLR 87. That decision of the High Court was subsequently followed by the Māori Appellate Court in the decision in re an appeal by Wade Wereta-Osborne concerning land known as Port Levy 874 section 1C block, (2003) 6 Te Waipo[u]namu Appeal MB 20. In that decision the Māori Appellate Court overturned a Lower Court refusal to grant partition on various grounds se...

7. Cameron & Ors as Trustees of the Normac Trust v Stevenson [2011] NZWHT Auckland 17 [pdf, 87 KB]

   ...installed. BMW accordingly submits the claimants brought no reliable evidence to the Tribunal to support the claims against it and therefore costs should be awarded. [3] BMW’s solicitor advises that the costs incurred since the High Court appeal amounted to $17,915.88. Using 2B of the District Court scale he submits BMW is entitled to costs of $12,972.00. [4] The claimants oppose the application as they consider BMW should bear its own costs. They say that the second am...

8. Zhong v Auckland Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 47 [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...application by the architect but recorded that the claimant, the party opposing removal, needed to establish causation. At adjudication the claim against the architect failed but the Tribunal declined his application for costs. [14] On appeal the District Court held that the Tribunal was wrong to conclude that the threshold for an award of costs under s91(1)(b) had not been met because the claimant failed to offer the necessary evidence of causation at hearing.8 S...

9. [2018] NZEmpC 10 TKR Properties Ltd t/a Top Pub & Route 26 Bar and Grill v MacDonald [pdf, 162 KB]

   ...its discretion under s 180 there are seven considerations that have been accepted as applicable to a greater or lesser extent in a particular case: This is not a comprehensive list.4 • if no stay is granted, whether the applicant’s right of appeal (or challenge) will be ineffectual; • whether the challenge is brought and prosecuted for good reasons, and in good faith; • whether the successful party at first instance will be affected injuriously by a stay; • the e...

10. [2016] NZEmpC 75 Bhikoo v Stephen Marr Hair Design Newmarket Ltd [pdf, 96 KB]

    ...he rejected prior to the commencement of the Authority’s investigation meeting and later, before the hearing of the challenge. [6] In exercising its discretion, the Court also has regard to the principles set out in decisions of the Court of Appeal. 2 Generally costs will follow the event and be awarded to the successful party. The practice established by this Court of usually awarding two-thirds of actual and reasonable costs has been approved. In exercising the discretion...