Search Results

1. [2025] NZEmpC 109 Wiles v The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Auckland [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...save as to costs (a Calderbank offer), this offer was not made until quite late in the piece, and although the monetary offer exceeded what Associate Professor Wiles obtained in the Court, it did not include any recognition of the non-financial matters on which Associate Professor Wiles sought vindication. She relies on Binnie v Pacific Health Ltd for the proposition that, in a case where justified public vindication of reputation is a material factor in the litigation, looking a...

2. DG v WV LCRO 14 / 2011 (24 June 2011) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...and I need to express my concern about the motives of a review applicant who misrepresents the true state of affairs. [30] I asked the Applicant why the disciplinary machinery of the New Zealand Law Society should be exercised in respect of matters occurring in the Court which appeared to be well within the ability of a Judge to deal with. He submitted that a Judge had no recourse to having that information corrected. This is clearly not right since it is well within the powe...

3. [2012] NZEmpC 124 Allen v C3 Ltd [pdf, 256 KB]

   ...influential in Mr Pritchard’s consideration. In Walker v Waiheke High School Board of Governors 4 Blanchard J observed that: The mere presence of an accuser at a meeting in which a critical decision is taken may give rise to a breach of natural justice. It may influence the decision even if the accuser says nothing. [25] There is no immutable rule that the person complained about cannot act as decision-maker, and there will be circumstances in which it is not practical to do...

4. Tata v Tata - Waiwhakaata 3E 4C Lot 2A Block (Hiiona Marae) [2020] Maori Appellate Court MB 166 (2020 Appeal166) [pdf, 427 KB]

   ...WAIKATO-MANIAPOTO In the Māori Appellate Court of New Zealand Waikato-Maniapoto District A20180009413, APPEAL 2018/23 A20190001839, APPEAL 2019/1 WĀHANGA Under Section 58, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 MŌ TE TAKE In the matter of Waiwhakaata 3E 4C Lot 2A Block (Hiiona Marae) I WAENGA I A Between DAVID TATA Te Kaipīra Tuatahi First Appellant ME And TANIA MARTIN Te Kaipīra Tuarua Second Appellant ME And TAMAT...

5. [2012] NZEmpC 76 N Ltd v O [pdf, 121 KB]

   N LIMITED V O NZEmpC AK [2012] NZEmpC 76 [3 May 2012] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2012] NZEmpC 76 ARC 27/12 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN N LIMITED Plaintiff AND O Defendant Hearing: 3 May 2012 (Heard at Auckland) Counsel: Chris Patterson and Anneke Reid, counsel for plaintiff Garry Pollak, counsel for defendant Judgment: 3 May 2012 Reasons: 10 May 2012 RE...

6. Pilon v Iyengar and C&CDHB [2012] NZHRRT 9 [pdf, 56 KB]

   ...parties and the same facts are involved. Mr Pilon once again asserts that he is an “aggrieved person” under s 51 of the Act. The second defendant has applied to strike out the proceedings on the grounds that they are an attempt to re-litigate a matter which has already been determined against Mr Pilon and on the grounds that the proceedings amount to an abuse of process. [2] By memorandum dated 5 July 2011 Mr McClelland advised that Dr Iyengar no longer resides or practises in New...

7. CP v XF LCRO 191 / 2010 (20 June 2011) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...the lawyer for J in November 2007 and his appointment terminated in March 2010. Consequently, the conduct complained of falls to be considered under both sections 351 and 12 of the Act. The complaints [15] At the hearing, I proposed that each matter complained of by the Applicant should be considered separately and the hearing proceeded in that manner. Lack of respect [16] J was in the day-to-day care of his father. In April 2008 the Applicant learned that J had been attacked...

8. [2019] NZEmpC 63 Auckland Council v Drought [pdf, 279 KB]

   ...simply not argue the case. On the other hand, the people who are potentially affected, including the union that is a signatory of the collective agreement, are not parties to the present proceedings. As Mr Cranney says, this raises a natural justice issue and points away from the Court hearing the challenge. [32] Mr Cranney also says that this case was fact-specific; the first issue before the Authority dealt with whether the steps Mr Drought took when his employment transferr...

9. [2020] NZEmpC 135 Wills v Farmlands Co-Operative Society Ltd [pdf, 210 KB]

   ...SUSAN WILLS v FARMLANDS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED [2020] NZEmpC 135 [31 August 2020] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI [2020] NZEmpC 135 EMPC 218/2019 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER of an application for discovery against a non- party BETWEEN SUSAN WILLS Plaintiff AND FARMLANDS CO-O...

10. WVU v Real Estate Agents Authority Jurisdiction Objection [2014] NZHRRT 49 [pdf, 56 KB]

    ...The legislature and the Courts are well aware that the hearing of a case in public requires individuals to give evidence which may be embarrassing or humiliating. Nevertheless, the public interest, demanding the fair and efficient administration of justice, consistently trumps any personal features. A party who chooses to initiate a hearing which Parliament stipulates is to be held in public must take all the unpalatable consequences, not only of an adverse substantive decision but also on...