Search Results

1. [2015] NZEmpC 225 Lumsden v Skycity Management Ltd [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...submission was that they were frivolous because they could not succeed. Section 149 was said to be the stumbling block. [23] Section 149(3) provides that: Where, following the affirmation … the agreed terms of settlement to which the request relates are signed by the person empowered to do so, - (a) those terms are final and binding on, and enforceable by, the parties; and … (b) except for enforcement purposes, no party may seek to bring those terms before the A...

2. Form-15_Waitangi-Tribunal-Amendment.pdf [pdf, 193 KB]

   Legal Aid Services use only Approve Further information Refuse Version 21 – October 2023 page 1 10/23 form 15 Amendment to Grant Waitangi Tribunal Proceedings Legal Aid File No. Date Covers the period from to Customer WAI Number Provider Inquiry Stage of Inquiry for this Claim Stage 1 – Case Book Stage 2 – Interlocutory Conferencing Stage 3 – Hearing Lead Provider Provider 2 Other Provider Numb...

3. Apply for a review

   ...you will be notified when you get to the point where you can file a challenge with the Authority. If you want the Authority to review this decision, you must apply within two months from the date you are advised of Inland Revenue's decision. Use this form to apply: Notice of claim How much does it cost? It costs $552 (including GST) to apply for a review. This fee can be paid online using File and Pay What you need to send us You need to send us 3 copies of this form, Inland Revenue’s decisio...

   Located in:

   1. Tribunals >
   2. Taxation and Charities Review Authority >
   3. Tax Disputes

4. [2014] NZEmpC 167 Rothesay Bay Physiotherapy (2000) Ltd v Pryce-Jones [pdf, 123 KB]

   ...is successful. Although this is not elaborated on in any further detail, I am confident that these very well recorded events in the Authority and this Court would be persuasive grounds to be put before the Commissioner of Inland Revenue with a request to reassess tax decisions, if it comes to that. Alternatively, there is sufficient flexibility in the orders for compensation that the Authority and the Court can make, to compensate for any such losses if they are otherwise irremedi...

5. [2023] NZEmpC 189 Pretorius v Board of Trustees of Taupo Intermediate School [pdf, 285 KB]

   ...for the plaintiff took me to aspects of the written correspondence.10 [20] It is correct that Ms Pretorius did not refer to a grievance per se; however, that is not essential.11 [21] The defendant says that the letters do not include any information from which it could conclude that the plaintiff alleged she had been disadvantaged by its actions or that it had breached any health and safety obligations owed to her. It further says that even if it did, any such communication wo...

6. Koyama v New Zealand Law Society (Application by Defendant for Costs) [2013] NZHRRT 22 [pdf, 64 KB]

   ...proper for the Tribunal to wait until the completion of the process at the United Nations Human Rights Committee. I believe I have made it very clear on this matter. [18] We are of the view that it would be wrong to accede to this latest deferral request. It is now almost three years since the Tribunal decision was given on 19 July 2010 and experience shows that proceedings before the UN Human Rights Committee can be protracted. The delay involved will be measured not in months, but i...

7. [2023] NZEmpC 95 VMR v Aviation Security Service Division of Civil Aviation Authority [pdf, 257 KB]

   ...which AvSec said would justify an increase. For the reasons I have already given, I am not persuaded there should be an uplift. [33] Next, I consider the AVOs’ point that their financial circumstances should be taken into account. At the request of the Court, detailed affidavits have been filed. [34] I am satisfied, on the basis of that material, that each AVO continues to face significant financial challenges due to loss of their AvSec income which they have not been able to...

8. [2024] NZEmpC 253 Johnston v Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...Johnston without meeting the obligation to support him. Further, she submitted that the notification was a critical element of the employer’s decision-making process that is being challenged. Therefore, she submitted that the notification to OTBNZ forms part of his personal grievance for unjustified dismissal. [19] In respect of the first question of law, Ms Fechney submitted that the notification was premature and breached the employer’s obligations to explore reasonable ac...

9. Heta v Ministry of Social Development [2013] NZHRRT 8 [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...By decision dated 9 November 2011 the Tribunal struck out the first to fifth defendants and the Ministry of Social Development was substituted as the sole defendant. The decision also identified certain jurisdictional issues and information was requested from the Privacy Commissioner. See the decision of the Tribunal given on 9 November 2011. In a further decision given on 9 February 2012 the Tribunal struck out Ms Heta’s children as second plaintiffs. [7] On 21 February 2012 the...

10. Responding-to-the-Waitangi-Tribunal-recommendations-for-claimant-funding.pdf [pdf, 3.2 MB]

    ...following documents have been proactively released in accordance with Cabinet Office Circular CO (23) 4, "Proactive Release of Cabinet Material: Updated Requirements". Some information has been withheld on the basis that it would not, if requested under the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA), be released. Where that is the case, the relevant section of the OIA has been noted and no public interest has been identified that would outweigh the reasons for withholding it. No....