Search Results

1. [2020] NZEmpC 149 Bay of Plenty District Health Board v CultureSafe NZ Ltd [pdf, 438 KB]

   ...whether it went beyond that which was fair and temperate in the circumstances. He also submitted that the Authority had power under s 134A of the Act to make an order for penalties against any person who “obstructs” or “delays” an Authority investigation. It was submitted this power was broad enough to encompass conduct that amounted to contempt, particularly where it was designed to discourage or obstruct a litigant from seeking a proper determination from the Authority....

2. [2015] NZEmpC 92 Hally Labels Ltd v Powell [pdf, 426 KB]

   HALLY LABELS LIMITED v KEVIN POWELL NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2015] NZEmpC 92 [16 June 2015] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2015] NZEmpC 92 ARC 35/11 IN THE MATTER OF proceedings removed from the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN HALLY LABELS LIMITED Plaintiff AND KEVIN POWELL Defendant Hearing: 31 March-4 April 2014 2-12 February 2015 23-24 February 2015 Appearances: C T Patterson and A Halloran, counsel for plainti

3. TXY v Police [2025] NZHRRT 31 [pdf, 358 KB]

   (1) ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE NAME AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS OF THE PLAINTIFF AND A THIRD PARTY REFERRED TO IN THIS DECISION (2) ORDER PREVENTING SEARCH OF THE TRIBUNAL FILE WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE CHAIRPERSON OR DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON REDACTED DECISION OF TRIBUNAL1 1 This decision is to be cited as TXY v Police [2025] NZHRRT 31. Note publication restrictions. IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2025] NZHRRT 31 I TE TARAIPIUNARA MANA TANGATA Reference No. HRRT 032/201

4. [2014] NZEmpC 153 Roy v BOT of Tamaki College [pdf, 131 KB]

   ...action is not available as between the parties whether or not any attempt at pursuit is in contemplation. The latter is not permissible under s 238, but the former is permissible. … [51] Mr Roy was required by the Board to attend a meeting to investigate an allegation of misconduct that the school’s Principal had referred to the Board. This 6 Tobin v Stayinfront Inc ERA Auckland AA 314/05, 18 August 2005. 7 At [22]....

5. George v ACC [2012] NZACA 13 [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...related compensation was declined. The latest period of incapacity is a recurrence of the injury sustained in 1974 and as such, the same relevant earnings established at the time of the initial injury must be used.” [23] Mr Mirkin’s request for private medical treatment was declined, and as with the primary decision, no right of review was given. Mr Mirkin wrote to the Corporation again on 28 April 1981. After discussing rehabilitation, he said, in what has remained the appella...

6. D-G Conservation - EiC - N R Dunn - Freshwater Ecology (5 Feb 2021) [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   ...Wellington, New Zealand. Accessed 27 January 2021. O'Brien, L.K.; Dunn, N.R. 2007: Mudfish (Neochanna Galaxiidae) literature review. Science for Conservation 277. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand. 88 p. Skelton, P. 2019: Investigation of freshwater management and allocation functions at Otago Regional Council – report to the Minister for the Environment. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand. 73 p. Te Uru Rākau/Forestry New Zealand 2018: Fis...

7. LCRO 104/2018 CJ v MV (28 February 2020) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a Standards Committee or an investigator and seek and receive evidence. These powers extend to “any review” … … the power of review is much broader t...

8. Mollett v Accident Compensation Corporation (Suspension of Weekly Entitlement and Delay) [2023] NZACC 112 [pdf, 263 KB]

   ...reconvened hearing of this appeal on Monday 10 July 2023, Ms Koloni thanked the Corporation for its new decision, but submitted that it did not go far enough in relation to Ms Mollet’s injuries. Ms Koloni submitted that there needed to be a fuller investigation of the Corporation’s handling of Ms Mollet’s claims for cover and entitlements. [64] This Court finds as follows: (a) The Court agrees with the decision of the Corporation to revoke its suspension decision of 23 June...

9. LCRO 156/2016 KZ v XL on behalf of [Company A] (18 January 2019) [pdf, 320 KB]

   LCRO 156/2016 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN KZ Applicant AND XL on behalf of [Company A] Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Introduction [1] Ms KZ has applied to review a decision of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] (th

10. Eichelbaum report [pdf, 441 KB]

    1 I N D E X 1. Executive Summary 2. Introduction 2.1 Children’s names 2.2 Background 2.3 The Investigation 2.4 The charges 2.5 Depositions 2.6 In the High Court 2.7 The trial 2.8 The 1994 Appeal 2.9 The 1999 Appeal 3. The Ministerial Inquiry 3.1 The Terms of Reference 3.2 Interpretation 4. Process 4.1 Representation of parents 4.2 Appointment of Experts 4.3 The Regulat