Search Results

1. [2014] NZEmpC 92 H v A Limited [pdf, 263 KB]

   ...final orders. [3] On 13 December 2013 the Authority made an interim non-publication order that would lapse at 3:00 pm on 20 January 2014. The Authority member concluded that this order “was appropriate to allow the applicant an opportunity to inform his family and to exercise his rights of appeal if a further non-publication order was sought”. 2 [4] The plaintiff took up the option identified in the Authority’s determination and filed a de novo challenge on 13 January 2014...

2. [2014] NZEmpC 92 H v A Ltd [pdf, 263 KB]

   ...final orders. [3] On 13 December 2013 the Authority made an interim non-publication order that would lapse at 3:00 pm on 20 January 2014. The Authority member concluded that this order “was appropriate to allow the applicant an opportunity to inform his family and to exercise his rights of appeal if a further non-publication order was sought”. 2 [4] The plaintiff took up the option identified in the Authority’s determination and filed a de novo challenge on 13 January 2014...

3. Tapiki and Eru v New Zealand Parole Board [2019] NZHRRT 5 [pdf, 403 KB]

   ...proving one of the exceptions in Principle 11, the Tribunal must then determine whether the disclosure constituted an interference with the individual’s privacy as defined in s 66 of the Privacy Act. That is, has the plaintiff established one of the forms of actual or potential harm contemplated by s 66(1)(b). The burden of proof reverts to the plaintiff at this stage. [190.4] Fourth, if the Tribunal is satisfied to this stage, then its final task is to determine whether, in its dis...

4. [2023] NZEnvC 041 Barnhill Corporate Trustee Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 350 KB]

   ...protecting against the risk of further progressive degradation of the Basin’s remaining open working rural landscape character [7] The Interim Decision identified reinstatement of a “Basin-wide focus” as one of the guiding principles informing the court’s provisional drafting.3 We refer for example to our findings at [25] and [33] (concerning the WB Study), [41] (to which we return later), [78] and [79] and [137]. Those findings on the evidence inform the court’s provi...

5. [2023] NZIACDT 12 - XX v Xu (13 April 2023) [pdf, 252 KB]

   ...did she realise that she had “overlooked the letter of 24 March”.1 [13] According to Ms Xu, she advised the complainant on the same day that her mother’s visa had been declined, that the mother had become unlawful in New Zealand and that a request under s 61 should be made.2 The complainant acknowledges being aware of the decline (Ms Xu had told her on 2 May) and the need to make a request under s 61, but she does not accept Ms Xu informed her that her mother was an overstaye...

6. [2010] NZEmpC 123 Burtton & Browne v Talley's Group Ltd [pdf, 52 KB]

   ...offending, were adequately represented. The suspensions of the plaintiffs were lengthy, without pay, and largely without any communications with them about their progress despite statutory obligations requiring this. Despite, in at least one case, a request for essential information about the allegations, this was refused by the defendant. [26] There are other uncontroversial aspects of the processes that led to the plaintiffs’ dismissals that also support strongly arguable case...

7. [2015] NZEmpC 120 G L Freeman Holdings Ltd v Livingston [pdf, 113 KB]

   ...Authority determined1 1 Livingston v G L Freeman Holdings Ltd [2013] NZERA Christchurch 90. that the provision in question was not enforceable “because it is in the nature of a penalty to compel performance rather than a genuine assessment of liquidated damages.”2 On that basis, the Authority ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant the money it had withheld from her. The Authority also determined that the defendant...

8. KW v LX LCRO 209/2012 (27 August 2014) [pdf, 74 KB]

   ...Limited (GP) had been placed in receivership on 17 May 2011 and with no evidence that Mr KW had the authority of the receivers to make the complaint on behalf of the company treated the complaint as being by AD and CE KW. I note that the complaint form and the application for review are signed by Mr KW alone. However, there is little relevance in the issue as to whether or not the complainant is KW alone, or by himself and his brother V KW, and I will refer throughout this decisio...

9. [2017] NZEnvC 199 Toomey v Thames Coromandel District Council [pdf, 552 KB]

   ...in proceedings in seeking to enforce the public law as a matter of principle, a belief that activity of a particular kind ought to be prevented, or as part of an endeavour to achieve the objects of an association, or uphold the values which it was formed to promote, would not be an interest in the proceedings greater than that of the public generally. Nor would an interest in the preservation of a particular environment, or an intellectual or emotional concern, the satisfaction of rightin...

10. Director of Proceedings v Health New Zealand [2024] NZHRRT 37 [pdf, 710 KB]

    ...filed: [1.1] A statement of claim dated 26 March 2024. [1.2] A consent memorandum dated 25 March 2024. [1.3] An agreed summary of facts, a copy of which is annexed and marked ‘A’. [2] At paragraph 2(a) of the consent memorandum the parties request that the Tribunal exercises its jurisdiction and issues: A declaration pursuant to section 54(1)(a) of the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 (“the Act”) that the defendant has breached the Health and Disability Commissio...