Search Results

1. [2023] NZEmpC 70 Pietras v Vegar [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...Pietras v Vegar [2021] NZERA 539 (Member Loftus) (substantive determination). 3 Pietras v Vegar [2022] NZERA 22 (costs determination). 4 Vegar v Pietras [2022] NZERA 558 (reopening determination). no prior knowledge of Mr Pietras, or the matters engaged in these proceedings, and said that the whole matter is causing her a great deal of stress. Mr Pietras again seeks Authority direction [18] When the investigation was reopened, Mr Pietras again sought a direction from...

2. [2010] NZEmpC 103 Coy v Commissioner of Police [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...in reply. Ms McKechnie relied on the judgment of the High Court in McDougall v Council of CIT6 which addressed then r 510, now r 9.76. Counsel submitted that, referring to briefs instead of affidavits in reply, these “should be confined to matters strictly in reply … although they may include reconfirmation by the plaintiff of material previously stated but contested by the defendant. [20] Ms McKechnie submitted that no affidavit in reply should be permitted by the Court whe...

3. [2013] NZEmpC 165 Matsuoka v LSG Sky Chefs NZ Ltd [pdf, 185 KB]

   JOHN MATSUOKA v LSG SKY CHEFS NEW ZEALAND LTD NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2013] NZEmpC 165 [4 September 2013] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2013] NZEmpC 165 ARC 23/12 IN THE MATTER OF proceedings removed AND IN THE MATTER of applications for orders for discovery BETWEEN JOHN MATSUOKA Plaintiff AND LSG SKY CHEFS NEW ZEALAND LTD Defendant Hearing: 9 July 2013 By submissions filed on 12 and 15 July 2013 Appearances:...

4. [2010] NZEmpC 88 Coy v Commissioner of Police [pdf, 67 KB]

   ...objectivity, and these overarching professional obligations of counsel are an important assurance that the Court can have about the preparation and presentation of litigants’ cases. Put simply, the trial system could not work in the interests of justice without these safeguards in place or would at least work less well. I have no doubt that Mr Langbehn is confident that he knows of, and will attempt to adhere to, these obligations and limitations. However, I am not sufficiently...

5. ZA v YB LCRO 164/2013 (31 August 2016) [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...involved in the claim process. The WHT had declared a conflict of interest existed between Ms [RI]/Mr [PK] and Mr [RI], and had directed the claimants to file briefs of evidence, initially by 14 December 2012, and then by 21 December 2012. 2 [3] Matters were apparently complicated by Ms [RI] and her husband separating, and being at odds over the division of relationship property, which appears to have been linked to the claim. Mr [PK] was represented separately by Mr [OL]. It app...

6. [2013] NZEmpC 202 Hallwright v Forsyth Barr Ltd [pdf, 236 KB]

   ...Paviour- Smith’s evidence ought to be preferred. I do not accept this. [7] In R v Soutar 3 the Court of Appeal observed, with respect to the duty of counsel under s 92 of the Evidence Act 2006 to cross-examine witnesses on all significant matters in issue, that: 4 The general purpose of the duty reflected in s 92 [of the Evidence Act 2006] was commented on by this Court in R v Dewar [2008] NZCA 344 as being one of fairness. It relates to the challenge and confrontation of op...

7. [2021] NZEmpC 32 Lorigan v Infinity Automotive Ltd [pdf, 320 KB]

   ...[2021] NZEmpC 32 [19 March 2021] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU [2021] NZEmpC 32 EMPC 377/2015 EMPC 277/2016 EMPC 215/2017 EMPC 297/2017 IN THE MATTER OF challenges to determinations of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER OF proceedings removed from the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for sanctions, stay of...

8. LCRO 180/2018 & 186/2018 KM on behalf of XYZ Trust v DF (5 May 2020) [pdf, 159 KB]

   ...get instructions to instruct experts, an adjournment would have been a good thing. Procedure [62] A hearing with both parties was initially scheduled to take place on 24 March 2020. Because of the Covid-19 pandemic, directions from the Chief Justice, the Ministry of Justice and the LCRO, were to limit the occasions when persons were required to attend hearings in person. [63] Following a careful consideration of all of the material on the file I determined to complete this revie...

9. ENV-2016-AKL-000xxx Kuegler Family Trust & Others v Auckland Council [pdf, 2.4 MB]

   ...(noting there is no recommendation of the Hearings Panel determining whether some or all of the properties in Wallingford Street should have their notified zoning changed); (c) The Hearings Panel report does not contain a s32AA evaluation of the matters set out in s32 (1) to (4) in respect of this residential location in Grey Lynn. Those statutory provisions required a specific evaluation of the properties 3 affected and the zoning options. That was not done in respect of...

10. Savage v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2024] NZACC 083 [pdf, 273 KB]

    IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2024] NZACC 083 ACR 199/22 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 162(1) OF THE ACT BETWEEN GRAHAME SAVAGE Applicant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Submissions: Applicant is self-represented H Ifwersen and R Hindriksen for respondent Hearing: On the papers J...