Search Results

1. [2012] NZEmpC 109 Shelby Park Ltd v Blackie [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...Defendant Hearing: 4 and 5 April, 21 and 22 July and 13 September 2011 15 November 2011 by telephone conference call (Heard at Hamilton) Counsel: Eugene Morgan-Coakle, counsel for plaintiff Alex Hope, counsel for defendant Judgment: 11 July 2012 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE B S TRAVIS [1] The plaintiff company (Shelby Park) has challenged a determination 1 of the Employment Relations Authority which upheld the defendant’s claim that he had been unjustifiably su...

2. EMPC Retirement of Judge Travis [pdf, 287 KB]

   VALEDICTORY SITTING TO MARK THE RETIREMENT OF HIS HONOUR JUDGE BS TRAVIS SPEECHES EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND COURTROOM 2.01 4 PM FRIDAY 3 MAY 2013 CHIEF JUDGE GRAEME COLGAN on behalf of the Employment Court Welcome to this special sitting of the Employment Court to acknowledge and celebrate the service, as a Judge of the Employment Court and the Labour Court, of his Honour Judge Barrie Stephen Travis. I am especially pleased

3. [2014] NZEmpC 23 Greenslade v Jetstar Airways Ltd [pdf, 293 KB]

   ROBERT RICHARD GREENSLADE v JETSTAR AIRWAYS LIMITED NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2014] NZEmpC 23 [14 February] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2014] NZEmpC 23 ARC 91/12 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN ROBERT RICHARD GREENSLADE Plaintiff AND JETSTAR AIRWAYS LIMITED Defendant Hearing: Court: 6-7 May 2013 Chief Judge G L Colgan Judge Christina Inglis Judge M E

4. [2024] NZEmpC 183 Auckland Trotting Club Inc v Payne [pdf, 343 KB]

   ...Plaintiff AND GRAHAM JOHN PAYNE Defendant Hearing: 12–13 and 19 June 2024 (Heard at Auckland) Appearances: S Langton and L Briffett, counsel for plaintiff R Rao and Cari Richardson, counsel for defendant Judgment: 27 September 2024 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE KATHRYN BECK [1] These proceedings involve a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority, where it was determined that Graham Payne was entitled to be paid comm...

5. Appellate judgments 2021

   Supreme Court [2021] NZSC 188 H (SC 135-2021) v The Employment Relations Authority APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL - no error of law - no public interest in Court of Appeal's decision - application dismissed. [2021] NZSC 184 Gill Pizza v A Labour Inspector (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment   JURISDICTION OF AUTHORITY -  NATURE OF EMPLOYMENT - whether Authority has jurisdiction to decide employment status in Labour Inspector claim - text of the Act only supports one inter

   Located in:

   1. Employment Court >
   2. Judgments >
   3. Appellate court judgments

6. Davies v Trustees of Te Tii Waitangi B3 Ahu Whenua Trust - Te Tii Waitangi B3 Trust [2015] Māori Appellate Court MB 611 (2015 APPEAL 611) [pdf, 397 KB]

   ...AND MEREAWAROA DAVIES AND RICHARD BOYD TAKIMOANA Respondents Hearings: 14 August 2015 (Heard at Whangarei) Coram: Deputy Chief Judge C L Fox (Presiding) Judge S T A Milroy Judge C T Coxhead Date: 19 October 2015 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF THE MĀORI APPELLATE COURT 2015 Māori Appellate Court 612 Background [1] This is an appeal from a decision of the Māori Land Court of 31 October 2014. 1 In that decision Judge Armstrong found that the trustees of the...

7. LCRO 182/2014 DL v SJ, GS and PQ [pdf, 292 KB]

   ...must be independent and free from compromising influences or loyalties when providing services to his or her clients. 5.1 The relationship between lawyer and client is one of confidence and trust that must never be abused. 5.2 The professional judgment of a lawyer must at all times be exercised within the bounds of the law and the professional obligations of the lawyer solely for the benefit of the client. 5.3 A lawyer must at all times exercise independent professional judgment on a...

8. LCRO 36/2018 AA v SM (19 December 2018) [pdf, 250 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. [39] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:7 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee deter...

9. LCRO 200/2020 SK and WP v AQ (27 October 2023) [pdf, 292 KB]

   ...legal issues in the meeting. Similarly, time spent correcting the drafting of the document is inherently less valuable than determining what should be in the document and drafting it in the first place. [84] Time spent exercising professional judgement and giving the client advice is more valuable than any other time. These “under and over” factors are matters to be 18 taken into account in setting a time-recording rate and then in assessing a fair and reasonable fee using...

10. Eichelbaum report [pdf, 441 KB]

    1 I N D E X 1. Executive Summary 2. Introduction 2.1 Children’s names 2.2 Background 2.3 The Investigation 2.4 The charges 2.5 Depositions 2.6 In the High Court 2.7 The trial 2.8 The 1994 Appeal 2.9 The 1999 Appeal 3. The Ministerial Inquiry 3.1 The Terms of Reference 3.2 Interpretation 4. Process 4.1 Representation of parents 4.2 Appointment of Experts 4.3 The Regulat