Search Results

1. [2016] NZEmpC 73 Hill v Tex Onsite Ltd [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...but has declined to do so. Rather he has filed a challenge to the Authority’s determinations and has applied for a stay. The application is opposed by the company. The parties agreed to the application being dealt with on the papers, and requested that it be determined prior to a Judicial Settlement Conference which is currently scheduled for 5 July 2016. Approach [3] A challenge does not operate as a stay unless the Court so orders. 3 The discretion is wide but must be...

2. Consolidated Practice Directions 2016. [pdf, 139 KB]

   EMPLOYMENT COURT PRACTICE DIRECTIONS October 2016 Except to the extent that former Practice Directions are hereby revoked, these directions will apply in addition to those previously issued and which may be conveniently found on the Employment Court’s website at: http://www.employmentcourt.govt.nz/legislation-and-rules 1. Full Courts 1. Pursuant to s 209 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 the Chief Judge may direct that a full Court of three or more Judges shall hea

3. National Standards Committee 1 v Haines [2022] NZLCDT 10 (8 April 2022) [pdf, 551 KB]

   NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2022] NZLCDT 10 LCDT 023/20, 013/21, 014/21, 019/21 IN THE MATTER of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE (No 1) Applicant AND QUENTIN STOBART HAINES Former Practitioner CHAIR Judge D F Clarkson MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL Mr I Hunt Mr F Pereira MNZM Ms M Scholtens QC Dr D Tulloch HEARING 023/20 on 20 April 2021; resumed on 12 May 2021 HELD AT Wellin

4. [2009] NZEmpC AC 37/09 Real Cool Ltd v Gunfield [pdf, 31 KB]

   ...until early June 2007 when she resigned, had been Real Cool’s administration manager responsible for Ms Gunfield’s employment with Real Cool and to whom Ms Gunfield reported for a short time. Despite the assertion of Grant Harford who was formerly and at relevant times the Chief Executive Officer of CSN, I conclude that Ms Maxwell was an employee by CSN and was authorised by that company to act for it in preparation for its takeover of the Real Cool and Versacold businesses in...

5. [2022] NZEmpC 86 Tupe v The Board of Trustees of Te Manawa o Tuhoe Trust [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...for Mr Tupe, Mr Madden offered him two dates, either Monday 20 January 2020 at 10 am or Tuesday 21 January 2020 at 3 pm. [12] After not hearing from Mr Tupe in relation to those dates, and following an attempt to engage with him, Mr Madden formed the view that Mr Tupe did not intend to communicate with him regarding interview dates and did not intend to take part in an interview. He decided to terminate Mr Tupe’s employment and did so by email on 20 January 2020....

6. Amaru v Dickson - Puketapu 3C7B1 (2019) 399 Aotea MB 202 (399 AOT 202) [pdf, 263 KB]

   ...Mrs Dickinson, however, identified that the trustee consents incorrectly recorded the name of the trust as the Ripeka Te Taite Whānau Trust. 399 Aotea MB 203 [4] Those orders were conditional on the nominees filing the correct consent forms within one month. They were also directed to hold a trustee meeting before the end of year to elect office holders and attend to any other trust business deemed necessary. The minutes of that meeting were to be filed with the Court...

7. Guo v PwC (Non-Party Discovery - Oral Hearing) [2020] NZHRRT 51 [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...by the Tribunal on 16 June 2017 in the proceedings brought by Ms Guo against Dr Culpan (HRRT025/16: Guo v Culpan) at paras [22] to [24] an earlier application by her for a search order against Dr Culpan was dealt with in the following terms: The request for a search order [22] Consequent on Ms Guo’s belief Dr Culpan has obstructed the course of justice by allegedly destroying evidence, Ms Li by memorandum dated 15 June 2017 has requested an order authorising computer experts retained...

8. [2022] NZEmpC 39 Malcolm v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [pdf, 332 KB]

   ...reserved. Process in this Court [21] The plaintiffs’ challenge was originally filed on 10 November 2021. I held a telephone directions conference with the representatives on 11 November 2021. At that conference, there was discussion as to the form of the statement of claim (incorrectly described as a statement of problem). [22] Mx Hornsby-Geluk, counsel for the defendants, submitted that the document was not compliant with the Court’s requirements. Counsel said no remedi...

9. U v F LCRO 26 / 2009 (6 April 2009) [pdf, 17 KB]

   ...Lawyer F to answer. On this basis Complainant U was invited to attend a “case to answer” hearing to present any further argument or evidence in support of the application and to determine whether the matter should proceed further. Lawyer F was informed of the hearing but was not required to attend and chose not to do so. Background [5] This complaint is made against the background that Complainant U is of the view that he has a legitimate and longstanding grievance against Law...

10. LCRO 137/2016 HA v TY Costs Decision [pdf, 97 KB]

    ...evidence with regard to the discovery process was not before the Employment Court. She says: 3 For example, Ms HA was concerned that Ms TY could not have reviewed all her client’s ([ABCD]New Zealand Limited) privileged documents. Ms TY claimed to have spent 38.61 hours (2,376 minutes) reviewing 11,837 documents which would have resulted in a review time of just 12 seconds per document. [12] Rule 13.9 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care)...