Search Results

1. [2021] NZEmpC 137 Coetzee v Oamaru Meats Ltd [pdf, 280 KB]

   ...from Mr Thorp’s statement that he had not been promoted to the maintenance manager’s position. The company was invited to address this grievance by providing reasons for that decision and to attend mediation. A response by 30 August 2019 was requested. [13] Mr Thorp did not wait to respond. On 27 August he reiterated the points made previously, noting that the company was going through the consultation process about the proposed restructuring. Mr Coetzee was informed that...

2. [2022] NZEmpC 52 Fechney v Employment Relations Authority [pdf, 382 KB]

   ...respondent S McKechnie and T Bremner, counsel for intervener Judgment: 23 March 2022 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE J C HOLDEN [1] Ms Fechney is an employment advocate who recently has been acting in a number of cases in which employees, or former employees, have challenged the application of the Government’s COVID-19 mandates. One of the people who was challenging the application of the mandates was GF, a former employee of New Zealand Customs Service (Custo...

3. Dassanayake v Manukau City Council [2010] NZWHT Auckland 18 [pdf, 96 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2010-100-000012 [2010] NZWHT AUCKLAND 18 BETWEEN WAJIRA KUMARA DASSANAYAKE AND KUMUDIKA PRIYANTHI DASSANAYAKE Claimants AND MANUKAU CITY COUNCIL First Respondent AND D MOORE Second Respondent AND PETER YAU Third Respondent AND STEVE O’LEARY Fourth Respondent Decision: 24 June 2010 COSTS DETERMINATION Adjudicator: K D Kilgour Application by First Respondent for Costs following Determination o

4. Hartley v Balemi [pdf, 401 KB]

   ...plaster cladding has resulted in rot and damage to internal linings”. They were claiming for the estimated costs of repairs to remedy the problems at a figure of $300,000.00. 4.2 As a part of the preparations for the hearing, the Owners were requested to provide more details and particulars about their claims. This was done before the respondents were required to file their Responses pursuant to section 28 of the WHRS Act. The Owners identified a list of the problems with the...

5. DK & EK v S Ltd [2024] NZDT 359 (27 March 2024) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...claim that their contract did not include a term limiting the liability. 21. That is because the terms of a contract are set at the beginning of the contract and cannot be introduced part way through the transaction. In my view the contract was formed at the point S Ltd accepted DK and EK’s request to come and inspect the property. 22. Given DK and EK only received the term limiting liability after this (ie once they received the report) it did not form part of their contractual a...

6. [2018] NZEmpC 98 Ovation NZ Ltd v The NZ Meat Workers and Related Trades Union [pdf, 343 KB]

   ...1 Airways Corp of New Zealand Ltd v Postles [2002] 1 ERNZ 71 (CA). 2 Ovation New Zealand Ltd v The New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union Inc [2018] NZEmpC 92. and that compliance of those requests would be given by 10 August 2018. I reserved leave for the parties to apply promptly with regard to any disclosure issues. [7] Mutual informal disclosure then took place. Counsel for the plaintiffs sought disclosure by email sent on

7. BO v XTT [2012] NZIACDT 31 (28 June 2012) [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...professional duties as a licensed immigration adviser. [2] The professional engagement arose when Mr BO needed a variation to his work permit, as he wanted to work for a new employer. [3] He says Mr XTT met with him briefly, and gave him a blank form to sign. Mr XTT failed to tell him that he could not take up work with a new employer until Immigration New Zealand processed the application. Mr XTT delayed filing the application, and did not keep in touch with him. [4] Mr BO took...

8. BORA Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill [pdf, 286 KB]

   ...with arts 14 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which are comparable to ss 20 and 27(2) of the Bill of Rights Act [6]. Exclusion of remedy of compensation/Crown Forest Assets Act 1989 10. Clause 22(3) excludes any form of monetary compensation as a remedy for any failure of the Crown to comply with a protocol under Part 2 of the Bill. Clause 104(2) prevents any court or tribunal from doing or omitting to do anything, between the date of settlement and t...

9. Smith v McCallum and Ross (Strike-Out Application) [2018] NZHRRT 47 [pdf, 1.3 MB]

   ...was considerable delay before a case management teleconference was able to be convened. On 1 June 2018, the Secretary emailed Ms Gordon about arrangements for the conference. Ms Gordon replied advising that she was no longer acting for Mr Smith and requested that the Secretary contact his new representative, Kevin Murray. [6] On 11 June 2018, Mr Murray advised the Secretary that he had attempted to contact Mr Smith via telephone and email but had had no response. On 12 June 2018, the Se...

10. [2012] NZEmpC 27 Taylor v Milburn Lime Ltd [pdf, 76 KB]

    ...correct that the hearing was adjourned twice but the second adjournment was totally unavoidable. In respect of the first adjournment, I fixed costs at the time. [8] The defendant’s reluctance to settle is unsurprising given that the plaintiff’s claim had been entirely rejected by the Authority. [9] Other than to make those points, Mr Beck has provided no material to assist me in deciding what costs it was reasonable for the plaintiff to have incurred. In particular, I have n...