Search Results

1. [2016] NZEmpC 17 NZ Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc v AFFCO NZ Ltd [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...action – decision”. The full Court concluded that AFFCO had breached s 32(1)(d)(ii) and (iii) of the Act in engaging or attempting to engage individual employees being bargained for collectively by requiring those employees to accept AFFCO’s forms of individual employment agreements if they were to be re-engaged for the 2015/2016 season. [11] More particularly, the Court found that AFFCO acted in bad faith (in beach of ss 32(1) and 44 of the Act) in a number of ways. First...

2. Auckland Standards Committee 3 v Potter [2022] NZLCDT 27 (27 July 2022) [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...than in the course of his employment. This relates to his accepting engagement as the client’s employment representative when he was only permitted to undertake legal work as an employee. 9 [34] Although Mr Potter admitted the charge, we requested further submission from the Standards Committee to satisfy ourselves that Mr Potter had infringed s 9(1)(a) of the Act. Our request centred on whether the services for which Mr Potter contracted were regulated services. A non-law...

3. [2020] NZCAA 01 (7 July 2020) [pdf, 307 KB]

   ...that it was a costs order, when that was not the case. [2] The decision reserved costs, which are the subject of this decision. [3] The Respondent (Customs) said the Authority does not have jurisdiction to award costs on the basis the Appellant claimed costs. Customs sought to be heard further if I did not agree. In my view the Authority must set reasonable costs, having regard to the long- established principles that apply to cost awards in New Zealand. [4] The principles for th...

4. [2011] NZEmpC 116 Pollett v Browns Real Estate Ltd [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...examination and determination on this aspect of the case. [27] Mr Pollett has submitted that his claim to unjustified dismissal was not dealt with properly in the sense that it has not been the subject of mediation. He says that although he requested Browns to attempt to resolve his issues by mediation, it declined to agree to do so and the Employment Relations Authority made no direction to mediation. [28] Whilst the Act puts a strong emphasis on settlement of employment r...

5. [2016] NZEmpC 98 Nisha Alim v LSG Sky Chef New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...since it provides the Registrar with the power to remove a company from the register. In this case, the Registrar is proceeding under s 318(1)(d), the effect of which is that she must remove a company from the register if there is a qualifying request to do so. However, this power is subject to s 318(5), which relevantly provides that removal cannot occur if there is an objection to removal under s 321. [16] PRI accordingly submits that if the objection procedure were to be insti...

6. TR v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2023] NZACC 82 [pdf, 262 KB]

   ...Appeal to the High Court Section 162(1) Accident Compensation Act 2001] [1] This is an application for leave to appeal to the High Court against a judgment of His Honour Judge McGuire, delivered on 20 February 2023. [2] The applicant lodged a claim for tuberculosis (TB) as a work injury. The Corporation’s decision dated 5 June 2019 declined the claim on the basis the records did not suggest the applicant had suffered a personal injury, and even if a personal injury could be est...

7. [2014] NZEmpC 227 O’Hagan v Waitomo Adventures Ltd [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...Braun and M Brady, counsel for defendant Judgment: 12 December 2014 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE CHRISTINA INGLIS [1] Mr O’Hagan was employed by Waitomo Adventures Limited (WAL). He departed from the company in 2009. He subsequently claimed, amongst other things, that he had been constructively dismissed. The Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) dismissed that aspect of the grievance and awarded costs of $3,500 in WAL’s favour. 1 Mr O’Hagan challenged the...

8. LCRO 136/2016 AB v DE and GH [pdf, 483 KB]

   ...alleging delay, and against Ms GH, alleging she registered the transfer of the NZ property to the JKs without Ms AB’s authority to do so, arise from Mr DE and, after he departed [Law Firm], Ms GH acting on those matters. Background [6] The ABs requested the JKs to enter into a Deed of Arrangement which would provide, amongst other things, for the contemporaneous settlement of both transactions and for the distribution of the sale proceeds of the Australian property. [7] On 27...

9. [2016] NZSSAA 034 (28 April 2016) [pdf, 34 KB]

   ...is fully aware of the decision process. [7] Following receipt of the submission from the Authority the Chief Executive’s response was referred to the appellant’s advocate and further information was sought about the matter. An explanation was requested as to why there was no follow up on the Benefits Review Committee decision before February 2015 and a submission about the prospects of success requested. [8] In a response dated 25 September 2015 Mr Ellis has advised that:...

10. SM Ltd v QT [2022] NZDT 169 (31 October 2022) [pdf, 97 KB]

    ...Ltd’s Terms of Engagement, which he accepted and signed at the time. 4. NN carried out work and invoiced QT for $1800 plus gst, noting that it was reduced from $2646 which represented 7.9 hours at $325 plus gst per hour as quoted. 5. QT informed NN he would not pay more than the estimated price. 6. The issues to be decided are: i. Does the estimate mean that NN has undertaken to charge within the range of $1000 to $1500 plus gst? ii. What is the effect of the fact that NN...