Search Results

1. [2025] NZEmpC 49 Matheson v Rainbow Confectionery Ltd [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...to Ms Matheson reporting the outcome of his inquiries of the Court’s registry staff and informing her that some more information was required. He mentioned making progress slowly. The same day Ms Matheson asked him what else was needed and requested copies of documents for her records. They exchanged other correspondence over the legal aid application which is not relevant to this decision. [30] Eventually, Ms Matheson took matters into her own hands. On 26 September 2024,...

2. [2015] NZEmpC 219 NZ Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc v AFFCO NZ Ltd [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...sustainable claim in litigation by the Union. [9] Next, and allied to that, is the Union’s claim for compensation for past losses as a result of the unlawful lockout of the second plaintiffs, and other employees at Wairoa and Horotiu. These claims to remuneration are not included in the statement of claim in this Court and so may have to be either the subject of an application for leave to amend the statement of claim or the subject of fresh proceedings issued in the Em...

3. [2020] NZEmpC 125 Smith v Fletcher Concrete & Infrastructure Ltd [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...company was inadequate and contrary to s 103A(3) of the Act, including that Fletcher Concrete: (a) failed to put the actual concern to Mr Smith; (b) failed to provide him with statements of other employees that were critical to the matter; (c) formed a view as to Mr Smith’s general approach to health and safety, without advising Mr Smith of that or giving him an opportunity to comment on it; (d) failed to consider the competing policies; and (e) failed to consider the res...

4. Idea Services v Attorney-General (Interim Order Application) [2013] NZHRRT 24 [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...with all remaining remedy questions. And, although we do not mean to diminish the importance of the other remedies that have been sought in the claim, the reality is that to a large extent they are matters that either depend on, or will at least be informed by, the determination of the primary questions and the assessment of damages. In any event, if there are any questions of remedy that the High Court is not willing to deal with at first instance, it will be able to remit any such questi...

5. [2012] NZEmpC 220 Matsuoka v LSG Sky Chefs NZ [pdf, 130 KB]

   ...plaintiff’s solicitors should not continue to act for him and for Pacific. 4 [4] LSG also made allegations that the figures supplied to it on the transfer of Mr Matsuoka, quantifying his entitlements and previous salary, were incorrect and should not form the basis of his claim for remedies. These issues also arose in the High Court proceedings as my interlocutory judgment sets out. I note that the grounds of defence raised by LSG for further consideration, which involved these...

6. [2022] NZEmpC 89 Bay of Plenty District Health Board v CultureSafe New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 299 KB]

   ...the Court has effectively supported its approach, which has “progressively disabled” the dispute resolution process set out by Parliament. [17] He submits that the Authority has accordingly given itself power to make random orders at the request of employers, and this has gone as far as legalising injustice and offences, which the Court has supported and validated. [18] Then he states that in dealing with the issues arising in this case, the Court has bestowed powers on the...

7. CM v XH LCRO 97 / 2010 (5 July 2011) [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...This is a statutory obligation imposed by Section 139(2) of the Act. [4] The Standards Committee provided a statement of reasons shortly thereafter and this was provided to both parties who were invited to respond and provide any further information as they wished to forward. The Applicant raised a query about whether his review application to this Office had been sent to the Standards Committee. I am able to confirm that this was not done and should he wish to receive a copy of...

8. [2017] NZEnvC 159 Hokio Trusts v Manawatu Wanganui Regional Council [pdf, 4 MB]

   ...would otherwise be the case. The Applicant contended (in summary): • That the Court broadly accepted the findings of the independent hearing panel; • That Appellants had failed to undertake a "hard-headed analysis,,6 which would have informed them that their case lacked merit in a number of respects and that they were at risk of costs; • There were changes to the Appellants' case during the course of the appeal NOE pages 317 - 328. NOE page 357. Applicant...

9. HD v RWW Ltd [2017] NZDT 1032 (15 February 2017) [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...that – but Mr AH has given evidence that the vehicle was actually poorly maintained and at the poor end of the spectrum for its age. [11] Ms RR also provided evidence that $4250.00 was a low purchase price for such a vehicle in the form of two online advertisements for similar age and mileage vehicles. The asking prices shown for the other vehicles were $6000.00 and $6500.00, but as these are only asking prices, the evidence does not provide any proof that those higher...

10. [2021] NZEmpC 204 Ling v Super Cuisine Group Ltd [pdf, 200 KB]

    ...challenging the constructive dismissal finding started counting from the date of the substantive determination or from the date of the costs determination. An incorrect assumption was made that it was the latter. [10] That error is regrettable. Information on timeframes for filing is readily available online, and Mr Young could also have sought clarification from the Registry. Knowledge of such matters should be within the basic competence of any representative in this jurisdi...