Search Results

1. [2012] NZEmpC 215 NZ Language Centres Ltd (formerly GEOS NZ Ltd) v Page [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...filed on 21 December 2011, 19 April and 8 August 2012 Affidavits for plaintiff filed 27 April and 17 May 2012 (Heard at Auckland) Counsel: Dean Kilpatrick and Alice Lysaght, counsel for plaintiff Garry Pollak, counsel for defendant Judgment: 14 December 2012 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE B S TRAVIS [1] The plaintiff company has challenged a determination 1 of the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) which found that it had unjustifiably demoted the defendant, Da...

2. [2024] NZEmpC 84 E Tū Inc v Singh [pdf, 378 KB]

   E TŪ INCORPORATED v SHER SINGH [2024] NZEmpC 84 [21 May 2024] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU [2024] NZEmpC 84 EMPC 275/2023 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN E TŪ INCORPORATED Plaintiff AND SHER SINGH Defendant EMPC 286/2023 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authorit

3. [2022] NZEnvC 025 Greater Wellington Regional Council v Adams [pdf, 2.3 MB]

   IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KOTI-A-ROHE KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA IN THE J\.!IATIER BETWEEN AND AND AND AND AND AND Decision No. [2022] NZEnvC 25 of an application for enforcement orders under s 314 of the Resource Management Act 1991 GREATER WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL (ENV-2021-WLG-000019) Applicant STUART LEE ADAMS First Respondent QUALITY NZ HOMES LIMITED Second Respondent HENRY ADAMS LIMITED Third Respondent LIORAH CELESTE ATKINSO

4. Devillers v CAC303 & Ors [2015] NZREADT 38 [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...auction. She said Ms Watkins advised her to speak to the auctioneer. She felt the auctioneer was patronising as he said to her ‘you only need one person to come to the auction’. Ms Devillers said she went ahead with the auction against her better judgement.  She was also concerned that she had lost very precious roman coins and her son’s Go Pro during the sale process. Although she acknowledged that the agents were very supportive when she told them of her loss, she said...

5. CM v JD & Ors LCRO 006/2013 (10 March 2016) [pdf, 59 KB]

   ...treat payments as interest payments. That did not constitute a breach of any of the rules and was not contrary to any authorities provided by the contributors. It is not the role of the complaints procedure to place itself in a position of passing judgment on the wisdom of director’s decisions, or to take on board and pursue allegations from disgruntled investors. [44] Mr JD’s reference to the requirement of rule 10.1 (that the consent of all investors is required to the release of...

6. [2018] NZEnvC 011 Reuters Construction Ltd v Whanganui District Council [pdf, 770 KB]

   ...it may be necessary to refer to the other sections of the plan and the objectives and policies of the plan itself. Interpreting a rule by a rigid adherence to the wording of the particular rule itself would not, in our view be consistent with a judgment of this Court in Rattray or with the requirements of the Interpretation Act. [22] Here, the situation is not, as I see it, one of obscurity or ambiguity. The location of the boundary, vis-a-vis either of the two walls, the fence, and...

7. LCRO 171/2018 QZ v UJ (19 December 2018) [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...view on the evidence before her. Nevertheless, as the Guidelines properly recognise, where the review is of the exercise of a discretion, it is appropriate for the Review Officer to exercise some particular caution before substituting his or her own judgment without good reason. [21] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:3 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee deter...

8. LCRO 10/2020 EJ v HP (10 June 2020) [pdf, 123 KB]

   ...view on the evidence before her. Nevertheless, as the Guidelines properly recognise, where the review is of the exercise of a discretion, it is appropriate for the Review Officer to exercise some particular caution before substituting his or her own judgment without good reason. [36] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:2 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determ...

9. Re Apostolakis (Rejection of Statement of Claim) [2016] NZHRRT 35 [pdf, 68 KB]

   ...permit informal applications [20] The final point to be addressed is whether a determination should be made under regs 7 and 10 to the effect that the intended statement of claim be treated as having been commenced under the Privacy Act. [21] In our judgment it is not possible for such determination to be made. There are two reasons: [21.1] Mrs Apostolakis knew that to commence proceedings before the Tribunal in relation to alleged breaches of the Privacy Act it was necessary she use...

10. LCRO 202/2015 BT v DG (1 October 2018) [pdf, 234 KB]

    ...BT’s requests for an opinion as to the procedure followed by the Court of Appeal. [38] The Committee’s statement that “it would have been inappropriate for” the Committee to do so is correct. Mr BT wanted to challenge the Court of Appeal judgment. In his 10 September 2013 response to Mr BT, Dr DG provided his view as to the best way to proceed. In a subsequent letter dated 20 February 2014, he responded directly to Mr BT’s request. [39] Because Mr BT did not agree wit...