Search Results

1. [2024] NZEmpC 74 Hu v Passion Fresh Ltd [pdf, 273 KB]

   ...query was addressed by Passion Fresh in a further email of 12 April 2021 when Ms Hu was advised that the company did not share her view that her wages 1 Hu v Passion Fresh Ltd [2023] NZERA 54 (Member Fuiava). were incorrect. She was informed that the company considered the hours for which she was paid correlated with timecard hours, but an invitation was extended to discuss the matter in person. [9] On 13 April 2021, Ms Hu met representatives of Passion Fresh. During...

2. J v ACC [2010] NZACA 2 [pdf, 39 KB]

   ...1992, immediately after filing her claim in September 1992 for compensation for mental injuries suffered from multiple instances of sexual abuse. Ms Hubble argues there was no analysis of the effects of these instances of abuse on the appellant as forming a “continuum” and Ms Hubble submitted that the Authority has no evidential basis on which to apply JM on that point. [7] Additionally Ms Hubble argued that the application of JM is also inappropriate given that the claim in tha...

3. [2010] NZEmpC 10 Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 147 KB]

   ...course of the hearing of the disclosure challenge on 24 September 2009 I raised with counsel what appeared to me to be the underlying disclosure issue between the parties, which was whether the exercise undertaken by the defendant to change the format of the financial material it held, on what was described as the “SunSystem”, into the 5 CD-ROMs, was undertaken for the purpose of concealing from the plaintiff the true position of the defendant’s financial records. The disclos...

4. Te Manutukutuku 73 [pdf, 9.5 MB]

   ...inquiry. Judge Ambler’s widow, Te Tai Ambler, presented the report on behalf of the Tribunal to the deputy chair of the Maniapoto Māori Trust Board, Keith Ikin. The Tribunal issued these first two parts in advance of the full report in response to requests from the Crown and claimants for an early release of its findings on key issues. The title of the report, Te Mana Whatu Ahuru, was adopted from the term which, the Tribunal was told, Ngāti Maniapoto use for the power of ranga...

5. Bristol v Ngāti Rangi Trust - Rangiwaea-Tāpiri [2017] Chief Judge's MB 269 (2017 CJ 269) [pdf, 435 KB]

   ...Part No 6C and Rangipō Waiu 1B blocks.’ The Chief Surveyor had sought the application because the Crown 2017 Chief Judge’s MB 273 was seeking to use the land for a National Park. On 1 June 1960 the application was dismissed on the request of the Chief Surveyor. 3 [8] Less than a week later, on 7 June 1960, the application was reinstated. 4 At the 17 August 1960 hearing, evidence was given on behalf of Ngāti Waewae that they owned all the surrounding land and laid cl...

6. [2014] NZEmpC 169 Goulden v Capital and Coast District Health Board [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...out their respective views of the matter. [3] The facts are: a) On 7 July 2014, the plaintiff’s lawyers contacted the defendant’s lawyers asking whether they were authorised to accept service of the plaintiff’s statement of claim. By email of 7 July 2014, counsel for the defendant confirmed that she was so authorised. b) On the same day a letter was sent by signature-required courier from the plaintiff to the defendant, enclosing by way of service the statemen...

7. Matsuoka v E Tū Incorporated (Preservation Orders) [2018] NZHRRT 49 [pdf, 824 KB]

   ...APPLICATION BY PLAINTIFF FOR PRESERVATION ORDERS1 Introduction [1] E to Incorporated (E tO) is a union registered under Part 4 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and Mr Matsuoka is one of its members. [2] As is his entitlement, Mr Matsuoka requested access to his personal information held by E to. The union did not make any response to that request. The Privacy Act 1993 (PA) deems such failure to be a refusal of the request. 1 [This decision is to be cited as: Matsuoka v E Ta Inco...

8. [2015] NZEmpC 234 2015 AFT v BCM [pdf, 294 KB]

   ...which were very arguably not made out in this case. I will come back to these. [50] This was not litigation brought repeatedly by the applicant against the respondent or others associated with it, whether plainly or dressed up in alternative forms or forums. It was a serious claim that was brought by the applicant, that he had been dismissed constructively and unjustifiably by his employer from professional employment. The applicant’s claims were that the employer respondent...

9. [2024] NZEmpC 231Aurecon New Zealand Limited v Dowlut [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...days whilst further inquiries were made about her health. [53] Then Ms Dowlut resumed work, with the employer being satisfied that she could work and undertake disciplinary processes with appropriate support. At the same time, however, Aurecon requested any information Ms Dowlut wanted considered as part of the disciplinary process. Three weeks later, it attempted to restart the disciplinary process by inviting Ms Dowlut to a meeting. She declined to be involved thereafter, but...

10. L v EQC [2021] CEIT-2019-0036 [pdf, 411 KB]

    ...However, for reasons discussed below in paragraph [99], I need not consider that here. [31] Clause 3 goes no further than granting the discretion to not pay a “claim”. I note that “claim” is not defined by the Act. It may be argued that each request for payment is a “claim”, for the purposes of cl 3. However, this reading goes against the use of the word “claim” in a general insurance context, where a single claim, encapsulates all damage from each damage causing eve...