Search Results

1. [2016] NZEmpC 86 Radius Residential Care Ltd v The NZ Nurses Organisation Inc [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...the union now called E Tu Inc (E Tu) formed picket lines outside workplaces and the company’s head office during their working hours. They did so after their unions told Radius that they would then be engaged in paid stop-work meetings about matters of union business and, inferentially at least, collective bargaining that was then going on. [6] Paid stop-work meetings of limited duration are permitted under both the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act) 1 and the rel...

2. EA v NR LCRO 130/2015 (31 October 2016) [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...available under the Act. Mrs EA’s lawyer’s fees totalled $5,321.20 at the time of her application for review. She considers Ms NR should also pay those, and “whatever subsequent costs” Mrs EA incurs, “prior to finalisation of these matters”. Mrs EA also wishes to be consulted on the details that would be disclosed if this decision were to be published. [27] Mrs EA said she did not consider $5,000 was sufficient to adequately compensate her and her husband for the br...

3. LCRO 75/2022 BG v HC (25 October 2022) [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...did so on 9 July 2022. [22] HC’s response was comprehensive. A significant component of her response provided background to the circumstances which had culminated in the employment dispute. [23] To the extent that HC’s reply addressed matters specifically relating to the Standards Committee decision and the review application filed, HC submitted that: (a) on first seeking advice from BG, she had been assured by BG that she had strong prospect of a satisfactory outcome; and...

4. LCRO 6/2025 EI v NT (30 April 2025) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...6.1 of the Rules. (c) NT is a senior lawyer and has brought the legal profession into disrepute by failing to adhere to fundamental principles. (d) Although NT has corrected her “administrative practices” this only arise because EI drew the matter to her attention. (e) NT has never apologised nor has she reimbursed EI for legal fees. Response [30] In her letter to the Case Manager dated 25 March 2025, NT said the following: (a) The Committee’s decision was correct. (b) Her...

5. LCRO 79/2019 PS v NR (28 May 2020) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...Court pre-hearing conference on 3 October 2017, to pass on her communications “regarding parenting” to Mr UM, and (b) Mr NR subsequently informed her in his 20 October 2017 email that he would no longer do that, and she “must deal with these matters direct” with Mr UM.4 [12] She said although herself not aware at that time, Mr NR would have known that if she communicated directly with Mr UM she would breach the temporary protection order made on 29 June 2017. (2) Final pr...

6. [2019] NZEmpC 86 Lyttleton Port Company Ltd v Pender [pdf, 325 KB]

   ...That might, in part, be informed by the fact that the well-resourced employer was best placed, if it took issue with the employee’s version of events, to lead relevant evidence through its own witnesses. Ultimately the Court’s task is to do justice as a matter of equity and good conscience – and the route to a just and equitable outcome may vary from case to case. [55] I return to the plaintiff’s objections in the present case, one of the key ones being relevance. In ord...

7. LCRO 215/2018 WN v ZD (31 October 2019) [pdf, 162 KB]

   ...hearing was scheduled to proceed on 14 March 2017. Mr WN had advised that he and his wife would not be attending the hearing. [9] Ms ZD became unwell on the evening of 13 March 2017. She made request of the Court to reschedule the hearing. The matter was allocated a hearing date for 22 June 2017. [10] Ms ZD left the employ of [law firm] on 2 June 2017. On her departure, Mr WN’s file was transferred to Mr FV. [11] The summary judgment hearing proceeded on 22 June 2017. The...

8. [2024] NZEmpC 104 Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand v New Zealand Nurses Organisation Inc [pdf, 304 KB]

   ...was altered, even if that is what happened, such a situation would not justify continuing the litigation. The decision to refuse the plaintiff’s application for interim relief turn on assessments of the balance of convenience and interests of justice. The evidence supporting that analysis was provided by the plaintiff’s employees on Ward 5 and they fell squarely within s 84. Additionally, as Mr Cranney submitted, there is no evidence indicating that the strike by those employ...

9. LCRO 198/2020 CO and EA v LT (29 August 2023) [pdf, 673 KB]

   ...have taken the liberty of including the timeline provided by Mr CO with his complaint as a Schedule to this decision. [6] It is important to include here details of some of the correspondence between Mr LT and his clients towards the end of the matter: EA to LT – 17 April 2019 (11:20 am) (in response to email from Mr LT enclosing the letter from the Vendor’s solicitor waiving the condition as to title): What exactly does this mean? That titles will not be issued by 20 June?...

10. Williamson v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2023] NZACC 134 [pdf, 244 KB]

    ...reasonable request, ACC can decline to provide any entitlement which the client is otherwise eligible, unless they do comply. [18] Mr Williamson wrote to the Corporation again and requested a meeting to “clear the air and discuss any and all plans, matters and protocols going forward”. Further discussions took place, and it was agreed that a further meeting would be scheduled for 12 April 2018. On 12 March 2018, Mr Williamson again wrote to the case manager. The letter inclu...