Search Results

1. [2021] NZACC 18 - Haronga v ACC (18 January 2021) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 11 November 2020 Heard at: Nelson/Whakatū Evidence Completed: 13 January 2021 Appearances: S Macann for the appellant J Sumner for the respondent Judgment: 18 January 2021 ____________________________________________________________________ RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE DENESE HENARE [Work Related Gradual Process Injury – s 30 Accident Compensation Act 2001] ___________________...

2. [2024] NZEmpC 151 McGearty v Air New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 164 KB]

   ...AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Defendant Hearing: On the papers Appearances: RE Harrison KC, counsel for plaintiff PA Caisley, counsel for defendant P Wicks KC, counsel for New Zealand Air Line Pilots Assoc Inc as intervener Judgment: 12 August 2024 CONSENT INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT OF JUDGE KATHRYN BECK (Application for leave to intervene) [1] The New Zealand Air Line Pilots Assoc (NZALPA) has sought leave to intervene in these proceedings. [2] The...

3. Mita v Kumeroa - Kaitangata 4B and 3A (2006) 178 Aotea MB 140 (178 AOT 140) [pdf, 294 KB]

   178 Aotea MB 140 IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT Hearing: Judgment: Introduction A20050005832 A20050005664 UNDER Sections 18(1)(c) and 19, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Kaitangata 4B & 3A BETWEEN TERRY MITA Applicant AND 28 November 2006 (Heard at Whanganui) 30 November 2006 MARTIN KUMEROA Respondent RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE L R HARVEY [1] Terry Mita seeks an injunction to restrain Martin Kumeroa from using or damag...

4. [2021] NZEnvC 131 Wilson v Waikato Regional Council [pdf, 1.4 MB]

   ...‘spat collection purposes’ in the ordinary sense, r 16.5.1 is the operative rule. 13 [27] Implicit in the proper application of r 16.5.1 is a requirement to determine when spat collection is complete. That question involves a degree of judgment, informed by the science and industry experience on when it is generally safe to remove spat for seeding elsewhere for on-growing. We accept the evidence of Dr Jeffs and Mr Bull on these matters. That evidence supports an interpret...

5. Wihongi v Samson - Otarihau 2B1C [2018] Māori Appellate Court MB 469 (2018 APPEAL 469) [pdf, 317 KB]

   ...AND MASSEY SAMSON Respondents Hearing: 7 August 2018 (Heard at Whangarei) Coram: Judge C T Coxhead (Presiding) Judge L R Harvey Judge M P Armstrong Appearances: B Tupara and C Hirschfeld, for Appellant Judgment: 14 August 2018 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Copies to: B Tupara and C Hirschfeld, Ranfurly Chambers, 10 Kaihu Street, Auckland 0627, btupara@xtra.co.nz mailto:btupara@xtra.co.nz...

6. Pouwhare v Auld - Oparau No 1 Block and Pirongia West 12B3D (2015) 95 Waikato Maniapoto MB 167 (95 WMN 167) [pdf, 270 KB]

   ...Waikato Maniapoto MB 30-37) judicial telephone conference 9 December 2014 (91 Waikato Maniapoto MB 256-266) judicial telephone conference Appearances: Ms K F Shaw, Counsel for the Applicant Mr S Laubscher, Counsel for the Respondent Judgment: 16 March 2015 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE S R CLARK AS TO COSTS Copies to: Ms K F Shaw, Harkness Henry Lawyers, Private Bag 3077, Hamilton 3240, karen.shaw@harknesshenry.co.nz Mr S Laubscher, Lamb Bain Laubsch...

7. Argyle v Macdee McLennan Construction Ltd & Ors [2012] NZWHT Auckland 30 [pdf, 361 KB]

   ...Heath J held that the Sanghas were different from the other claimants and that in their case; the information represented by the CCC was “effectively spent.” They were aware of the water ingress problems and bought in reliance on their own judgement rather than in reliance on the CCC. Their reliance on their own judgement and the abated purchase price was held to be an intervening act which broke the chain of causation and accordingly, their claim failed. [120] As noted by...

8. [2017] NZEmpC 85 Ramkissoon v Commissioner of New Zealand Police [pdf, 668 KB]

   ...23, 26 and 27 August (Rotorua) and 11, 12 and 13 November (Tauranga) 2013 and by written submissions filed on 20, 21 and 27 November 2013 Appearances: P Brosnahan, counsel for plaintiff E Child and R Groot, counsel for defendant Judgment: 7 July 2017 JUDGMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE G L COLGAN A The plaintiff was disadvantaged unjustifiably in his employment by his non-appointment to the role of station sergeant at Opotiki. B The plaintiff was not dis...

9. Judgment delivery expectations

   All judges aim to deliver their judgments as quickly as possible.  The judges of the Employment Court expect that 90% of judgments will be delivered within three months of the last day of the hearing or receipt of the last submissions, whichever is later. The three month period does not include court vacations or other periods of judges’ leave.  A judge may sometimes tell the parties at the hearing that the judgment will take longer than three months to deliver because the...

   Located in:

   1. Employment Court

10. [2025] NZEmpC 166 Berryman v Fonterra Cooperative Group Ltd [pdf, 183 KB]

    ...BETWEEN CARL BERRYMAN Plaintiff AND FONTERRA COOPERATIVE GROUP LIMITED Defendant Hearing: On the papers Appearances: E Lambert, advocate for plaintiff R Rendle and M Austin, counsel for defendant Judgment: 7 August 2025 INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT (NO 3) OF JUDGE M S KING (Application for leave to file further submissions) [1] These proceedings involve a challenge by the plaintiff to a determination of the Employment...