Search Results

1. Changes to legal aid criminal fees schedules review - responses & final decisions [pdf, 1.3 MB]

   ..................................................................................................................................... 13 Our responses .................................................................................................................................... 13 Operational matters ............................................................................................................................... 15 Your comments ...............................................

2. [2015] NZEmpC 99 NZ Meat Workers Union Inc v South Pacific Meats Ltd [pdf, 249 KB]

   ...of this, he will be entitled to re-argue the question of the admissibility of the evidence which the Authority has refused to consider. Thus, the Authority’s determination on the inadmissibility of the evidence does not create an irrevocable injustice for Mr Austin. [22] Mr Malone also relies on another recent decision of this Court in Fletcher v Sharp Tudhope Lawyers. 6 In that case a party purported to challenge an Authority Member’s determination declining to order full d...

3. BORA Employment Relations Amendment Bill [pdf, 269 KB]

   ...with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the Bill of Rights Act. In reaching that conclusion, we have considered the consistency of the Bill with section 14 (freedom of expression), section 17 (freedom of association), and section 27(1) (right to justice). Our analysis is set out below. The Bill 4. The Bill amends the Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA) and the Wages Protection Act 1983 (WPA). It implements the Government’s post-election commitments regarding workplace relations. Thi...

4. [2022] NZACC 133 – Thomson v ACC (13 July 2022) [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...evidence by the appellant cannot establish the required causal link because the appellant is not medically qualified to determine the issue of causation. [21] Section 27(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (“BORA”) provides: Right to justice Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person's rights, obligations, or inte...

5. [2022] NZEmpC 201 Young v Port of Tauranga Ltd [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...reinstatement, the Authority (or Court) must:6 (a) determine whether there was a serious question to be tried (or conversely whether the claim is vexatious or frivolous); (b) consider the balance of convenience; and (c) assess the overall justice. [17] The question of whether there is a serious question has two components:7 (a) whether there is a serious question to be tried in relation to the claim of unjustifiable dismissal; and (b) if so, whether there is a serious que...

6. [2025] NZEmpC 49 Matheson v Rainbow Confectionery Ltd [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...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, she attempted to file an application for leave to extend time, which was rejected by the Court, before succeeding in filing the applications on 8 October 2024. [31] From the exchanges bet...

7. [2016] NZEmpC 112 Radius Residential Care Ltd v The NZ Nurses Organisation Inc [pdf, 431 KB]

   ...the sections of the Act affecting penalties do not stipulate any test as a precondition to penalising for a breach, even the general test of being “satisfied” that there has been a breach. It is not insignificant, in my view, that the Chief Justice did not confine the criminal standard only to criminal cases. Her Honour also used the countervailing phrase “in most other non-criminal proceedings unless a different standard is prescribed or applied” in relation to the balance...

8. [2025] NZLVT 10 - Donald v Hastings District Council (19 March 2025) [pdf, 240 KB]

   DONALD & ORS V HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL IN THE LAND VALUATION TRIBUNAL AT AUCKLAND I TE TARAIPŪNARA WĀRIU WHENUA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2025] NZLVT 010 IN THE MATTER OF an application under s 80(3) of the Public Works Act 1981 AND an application under s 22(2) of the Land Valuation Proceedings Act 1948 BETWEEN IAN DONALD JANET STEVENSON PAUL STEVENSON (ENV-2024-AKL-000262) Claimants AND HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Tribunal: Judge M...

9. QB v OL [2021] NZDT 1563 (7 December 2021) [pdf, 164 KB]

   ...of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the proceedings. PLEASE NOTE: Parties need to be aware they cannot appeal a Referee’s finding of fact. Where a Referee has made a decision on the issues raised as part...

10. [2015] NZEmpC 232 Bidvest New Zealand Limited v FIRST Union Inc reasons for interlocutory [pdf, 132 KB]

    ...that balance of convenience, as is whether damages or other relief may subsequently be an adequate remedy for the ultimately successful party. [13] Finally, the remedy of injunction being discretionary, the Court must assess where the overall justice of the case lies in the meantime. There may be a variety of discretionary considerations that are applied to this test. [14] Amongst the plaintiff’s Hamilton warehouse customers are some 27 aged care facilities, health service prov...