Search Results

1. [2012] NZEmpC 217 Yang v L E Builders Ltd [pdf, 61 KB]

   ...and the factual findings she made. The defendant was not represented at the hearing. The Judge accepted the plaintiff’s evidence that he had raised the issue of his employment status with Mr Loo and that some time later he was asked to sign a form by Mr Loo’s secretary. The judgment records the report by the Document Examination Section of the New Zealand Police on the form the plaintiff signed. The report supported his evidence that he did not fill in the form, other than h...

2. [2008] NZEmpC AC 1/08 Yong t/a Yong and Co Chartered Accountants v Chin [pdf, 34 KB]

   ...until she resigned on 25 November 2005. She alleged that the termination of her employment ought to be regarded as a constructive dismissal and sought remedies by way of compensation for distress and reimbursement of lost income. She also made a claim for arrears of wages in the form of holiday pay owing to her. [5] Those claims were the subject of an application to the Employment Relations Authority filed in February 2006. The Authority investigated the matter and gave its dete...

3. [2006] NZEmpC AC 33/06 Roberts v Commissioner of Police [pdf, 41 KB]

   ...Burns, Counsel for Defendant Judgment: 27 June 2006 Judgment of Chief Judge GL Colgan [1] The essential question on this challenge to the determination of the Employment Relations Authority is whether Neil Roberts’s personal grievance claim was struck out wrongly for limitations reasons. It involves interpretation and application of transitional provisions in the Employment Relations Act 2000. Background [2] The challenge has reached this point for decision by an unu...

4. Storie & Raynes v CAC10057 & Barlow [2012] NZREADT 7 [pdf, 158 KB]

   ...matters, even if it was a conclusion on which minds might reasonably differ. In such circumstances it is an error for the High Court to defer to the lower Court’s assessment of the acceptability and weight to be accorded to the evidence, rather than forming its own opinion”. 3 [7] In Kacem v Bashir [2010] NZSC 112 the Supreme Court has clarified that the principles in Austin, Nichols apply to Courts exercising jurisdiction over general appeals from lower Courts, not appe...

5. KR v HS LCRO 227/13 (7 November 2014) [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...firm’s subsequent application to the Disputes Tribunal to recover its fees has been stressful, embarrassing and humiliating to her. [5] Mr HS provided correspondence addressed to Ms KR during the time he acted for her which contains his repeated requests for her to provide further information in support of her legal aid application, and his advice to her that if she failed to provide the information her legal aid application would be refused. In mid-2011 Mr HS advised Ms KR tha...

6. [2017] NZEmpC 85 Ramkissoon v Commissioner of New Zealand Police [pdf, 668 KB]

   ...force in 1 April 2011. 3 See Angus v Ports of Auckland Ltd [2011] NZEmpC 160, [2011] ERNZ 466. 4 Allen v C3 Ltd [2012] NZEmpC 124, [2012] ERNZ 478. not have retrospective effect. It was also significant that, in both its new and old forms, s 103A focuses on the actions of the employer at the time of dismissal. The Court also found significant ss 17 and 18 of the Interpretation Act 1999 which provide: 17 Effect of repeal generally (1) The repeal of an enactment doe...

7. WL & BN v SD LCRO 106/2015 (5 July 2016) [pdf, 65 KB]

   ...privilege on behalf of a client in the absence of proper grounds for doing so”. That applicability of that rule was therefore placed within the context of a claim of privilege, which generally arises in the course of discovery. [20] The parties were requested to provide submissions/comments on my preliminary view. [21] In reply, Mr VL submitted that “whether the breach falls within the scope of rule 13.9 is irrelevant”.6 The rules are based on the fundamental obligations of law...

8. LCRO 47/2016 FD v QB (16 October 2018) [pdf, 164 KB]

   ...3 good order. Mr FD says Mr QB overcharged by around $3,500 and should reimburse him his share, $2,834.67. [8] Mr QB did not wish to make any further comment, but confirmed he would provide any specific information that this Office might request. Review Hearing [9] Mr FD attended a review hearing by telephone on 10 October 2018. Mr QB was not required to attend and did not exercise his right to do so. Nature and scope of review [10] The nature and scope of a review have...

9. [2018] NZEnvC 052 Queenstown Airport Corporation Limited [pdf, 3.3 MB]

   ...Queenstown Airport Corporation Ltd [2017] NZHC 2962 at [10] . 17 [2017] NZHC 2962 at [14]. 1S Remarkables Park Ltd v Queenstown Airport Corporation Ltd [2018] NZHC 269 at [157]. 19 QAC Strike Out submissions at (24). 20 Transcript at 50. 9 Same claim different courts? [32] QAC referred to the decision of Collier v Butterworths of NZ Ltd (1997) 11 PRNZ 581, in support of an application to strike out for abuse of process where, as it is contested in this case, another court has...

10. [2015] NZEmpC 84 Robinson v Pacific Seals New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 197 KB]

    ...become known colloquially as a "non-de novo 20 Cliff v Air New Zealand Ltd [2005] ERNZ 1 (EmpC). challenge" (because of the absence of reference to this in s 179) is a narrower form of appeal in the sense that it identifies some but not all of the determination that is under appeal. That is exemplified by s 179(4) which requires a party not seeking a hearing de novo to specify what it says are errors of law or fact...