Search Results

1. [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...

2. 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?...

3. 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...

4. Chalecki v Accident Compensation Corporation (Entitlement to Vocational Rehabilitation Costs, Decision Capable of Review) [2023] NZACC 88 [pdf, 297 KB]

   IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2023] NZACC 88 ACR 87/22 ACR 102/22 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT BETWEEN EDMOND CHALECKI Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 4 April 2023 Heard at: Christchurch/Ōtautahi Appearances: The Appellant in person Mr I Hunt for the Respondent Judgment:...

5. LCRO 84/2020 WF v BP (11 June 2020) [pdf, 159 KB]

   ...the Government had announced its decision to move to a COVID-19 level 4 alert, that to commence 2 days after the announcement; and (d) following the Government announcement, his sole focus was on attending to his clients’ interests and staff matters; and (e) a judgment of the United Kingdom Supreme Court,12 supported his argument that service by e-mail could be problematic. 12 Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12. 7 [4...

6. Te Manutukutuku Issue 39 [pdf, 5.2 MB]

   ...investigate library administrative procedures. Michelle will compare these results with people's interview responses and recommend future options for managing information. Michelle's previous library work has been at the Department of Justice as Law Librarian, and at Te Puni Kokiri as Database Development Librarian. She has Scottish and Eng­ lish ancestry and grew up in Tau­ marunui and Hamilton. Michelle completed a Master of Arts (Hons) concentrating on New Zealand Li...

7. Watson v Day - Torere Section 64 (2024) 310 Waiariki MB 227 (310 WAR 227) [pdf, 286 KB]

   ...AOTEAROA I TE ROHE O TE WAIARIKI In the Māori Land Court of New Zealand Waiariki District AP20230009027 AP-20230000023550 WĀHANGA Under Sections 269(4) and 281, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 MŌ TE TAKE In the matter of Torere Section 64 I WAENGA I A Between GARY MAX WATSON Te kaitono Applicant ME And BRENT DAY, DAVID PETERS, JACK MIHAERE, KRIONE MAIKA, MAURICE WILLIAMS, RUSSELL MIO AND TAU REWHAREWHA THE COMMITTEE...

8. [2012] NZEmpC 96 South Pacific Meats Ltd v Mohammed [pdf, 238 KB]

   ...shift. Mr Hamilton said that he considered that Mr Mohammed had effectively abandoned his employment. However, this stands in contrast with the advice given at the conclusion of the 6 August meeting that Mr Mohammed would take time to reflect on matters before making a decision. Mr Hamilton did not make any attempt to contact Mr Mohammed and/or his representative to ascertain Mr Mohammed’s position on the offer that had been made to him, despite being aware that Mr Mohammed was...

9. [2016] NZEmpC 129 Maharaj v Wesley Wellington Mission Inc [pdf, 155 KB]

   ASHISH MAHARAJ v WESLEY WELLINGTON MISSION INCORPORATED NZEmpC WELLINGTON [2016] NZEmpC 129 [27 October 2016] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON [2016] NZEmpC 129 EMPC 110/2016 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER of an application to strike out proceedings BETWEEN ASHISH MAHARAJ Plaintiff AND WESLEY WELLINGTON MISSION INCORPORATED Defendant Hearing: 7...

10. LCRO 173/2021 KC v TG (6 May 2022) [pdf, 237 KB]

    ...gave Mr TG a copy of his terms of engagement. Included amongst the terms was the requirement for an initial retainer of $2,000 (which Mr TG paid). [13] As well, the terms described the legal work as being “employment dispute and associated matters” and advised that fees would be charged “based on time and attendance plus GST, office expenses and disbursements”. [14] Mr KC’s hourly rate, as a partner in [Law Firm A], was described in the terms of engagement as being betw...