Search Results

1. LCRO 187/2017 MO v FP (13 December 2019) [pdf, 163 KB]

   ...services. [3] The bulk of the services were in fact performed by qualified employees of Mr FP but Ms MO is adamant that her complaint is against Mr FP alone. [4] Her objective was unclear from the complaint itself, but on review she clarified matters by expressing the desired outcome as being: To be reimbursed for all costs that have occurred for my time with Mr FP. This includes any third party expenses. 2 Background [5] In early 2014 Mr FP was approached by a number of (COM...

2. [2012] NZEmpC 101 Pottinger & Nine Dot consulting Ltd v Carew and Kelly Services (NZ) Ltd [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...Court must have regard to: 3 Whether there is a serious question to be determined; Where the balance of convenience lies between the parties in the period until the Authority determines the substantive application; and The overall justice of the case. [10] The purpose of interim relief is to protect a plaintiff (in this case the defendant) against injury for which it cannot be adequately compensated in damages in the event that it succeeds at trial. The remedy is d...

3. Thomas v Ministry of Social Development (Strike-Out Application) [2019] NZHRRT 39 [pdf, 234 KB]

   ...under s 74 has not resulted in a settlement (s 82(1)). In VUW v Accident Compensation (Jurisdiction Objection) [2014] NZHRRT 26 the Tribunal at [11] set out the statutory process: [11] The circumstances in which the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear matters under the Privacy Act are not unlimited. Indeed they are tightly circumscribed by ss 82 and 83 of the Act. This is fully explained in Director of Human Rights Proceedings [NKR] v Accident Compensation Corporation (Strike Out Applic...

4. IACDT Annual Report 2013 [pdf, 269 KB]

   ...Tribunal and was appointed in October 2010. Mr Pearson is a former member of the Removal Review Authority and the Refugee Status Appeals Authority. He was the Deputy Chair of the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal from 1999-2001. MATTERS ARISING IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS Caseload The caseload of the Tribunal was expected to be limited, and the Tribunal’s demand for resources low. The volume of complaints received by the Tribunal has been higher than anticipat...

5. [2015] NZEmpC 101 Georgetti v Compass Communications Ltd [pdf, 89 KB]

   ...payments worked in practice and the formula that was applied to the calculations. I accept, based on the material before the Court, that the applicant appears to have a seriously arguable case. Conclusion [13] Having considered the matters raised by the parties in support of their respective positions, I concluded that it was in the overall interests of justice that an extension of time be granted to the applicant to file a challenge. The time for filing a statement of...

6. [2021] NZEmpC 2 Talent Propeller Ltd v UXK [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...is well settled.2 Relevant factors include: - Why the challenge was not filed within the required time - The length of the delay in filing - Any prejudice or hardship to any person - The effect on rights and liabilities - The interests of justice [3] The Authority’s determination is dated 22 July 2020. That is the date from which the 28-day timeframe for filing a challenge ran. The Authority determination dealt with a number of issues, including whether a non-publication...

7. [2020] NZEmpC 67 Maddigan v Director-General of Conservation [pdf, 312 KB]

   ...to adjourn this aspect of the plaintiff’s application (the claim for a payment equivalent to 15 days’ long service leave). It may be that a direction to mediation on this residual issue would be beneficial, and I invite the parties to discuss matters further.5 The parties are to advise the Court within a period of 10 working days of the date of this judgment if mediation is considered appropriate (and, if not, why that is so) or, alternatively, advise the Court if no direction i...

8. [2023] NZEmpC 73 E Tu Inc v New Zealand Steel Ltd [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...determination means the whole dispute is able to be fully resolved by the Court. [13] If neither of those propositions is accepted, E Tū applies for leave to file the challenge to the first determination out of time, saying that is in the interests of justice. [14] NZ Steel says E Tū was required to file any challenge to the first determination within the usual 28-day period following issue; it cannot challenge it outside that period by filing a challenge to a later determin...

9. GI v UE LCRO 206 / 2010 (21 October 2011) [pdf, 128 KB]

   ...sued by an American company and a subsidiary Swiss company in New Zealand for breach of copyright. GI and ACG Limited were also sued in Australia for breach of patent. [2] GI initially engaged ACF to represent him and the company on these matters. [3] UD was interested in acquiring an interest in GI’s companies through UD’s company, ACH Limited, and initially instructed UE to act for him in connection with that. 2 [4] In November 2007 UD retained UE to advise GI...

10. Family Court rewrite submission: Northern Specialist Report Writers [pdf, 495 KB]

    1 Specialist Report Writers submissions to the Minister Of Justice review of the Family Court and to the NZ Psychologists’ Board (31 August 2018) Introduction: The situation with specialist report writers (SRW) is at crisis, with fewer than 100 (many being part-time) to service all of New Zealand and with more and more work coming our way (both more and more complicated work). The outcome will be vulnerable children, the Courts’ clients and perhaps vulnerable women/ fa...