Search Results

1. Rogers v Hauraki – Te Aute A1B (2015) 117 Taitokerau MB 87 (117 TTK 87) [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...be no bridges constructed, and such a condition was not imposed by the Court. Further, the type of vehicular bridge Arthur was intending to construct, which did not have any piles in the streambed, was a permitted activity that did not require resource consent. Arthur has not interfered with the flow of the streambed, and any problems with the stream relate to far 117 Taitokerau MB 94 larger issues of major flood events. Arthur also denies removing and selling gravel from...

2. [2013] NZEmpC 145 AARTS v Barnardos NZ and Ors [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...to itself as if it were a separate client entity. This approach provides no difficulty as far as out of pocket disbursements are concerned. I accept, also, that to the extent that the tenth defendant has had to deploy its professional in-house resources to defend its own position, it has been unable to take on and deal with other fee paying work and so has incurred a loss of income. Is such a loss in these particular circumstances a “cost” covered by cl 19 of Schedule 3 to the...

3. [2013] NZEmpC 150 McConnell v Board of Trustees of Mt Roskill Grammar School [pdf, 155 KB]

   ...investigation to conclude and the Authority to issue its (final) determination before having an opportunity to right the Authority’s perceived wrong. Such an approach will involve delay and the expenditure of sometimes precious and limited resources on concluding the Authority’s investigation. If the Authority has erred in the course of its investigation, why should the error not be put right by a discrete challenge so that the Authority can continue to determine the employme...

4. [2013] NZEmpC 200 Jonas v Menefy Trucking Ltd [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...resumed, “Mr Menefy continued to bait Mr Jonas in a way to invoke aggression.” In evidence, Mr Menefy denied that, at the time of the meeting, he wanted to get rid of Mr Jonas. He explained that he was being advised throughout by a human resources adviser and that “the risks of pre-determination” had been soundly explained to him. [20] Mr Richardson further told the Court (in evidence which I accept) that at the end of the meeting Mr Menefy made it clear that he did not...

5. Tukapua v Taueki - Horowhenua Block 11 (2012) 278 Aotea MB 172 (278 AOT 172) [pdf, 163 KB]

   ...approved by the Court. [34] This remains an urgent outstanding task that will need to be resolved as soon as possible, either by way of further hui or postal ballot or a combination of these options, taking into account the trust’s limited resources. In the interim, and in the absence of a current trust order, it may now be necessary for the Court to set terms of trust, pending yet another meeting of beneficiaries. It will be remembered that the previous trustees were set 27...

6. Houpapa v Woods - Taharoa A Sec 6D No 2 (2012) 44 Waikato Maniapoto MB 167 (44 WMN 167) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...reasonably necessary to enable the owner or occupier of the land to use and enjoy the land for any purpose for which it may be used in accordance with any right, permission, authority, consent, approval, or dispensation enjoyed or granted under the Resource Management Act 1991. [51] Two issues arise out of the definition of “reasonable access” in relation to this particular block. Those issues are: a) What purposes may the land be used for? b) What physical access is reasonably...

7. [2014] NZEmpC 153 Roy v BOT of Tamaki College [pdf, 131 KB]

   ...correspondence that the two of us will enter into”, “Let’s celebrate these positive things that we had between us and not dwell upon any negatives”, and the like. The email concluded with Mr Roy’s advice to Ms Pamaka that he had left some resources for his successor and that he would like to collect some personal items “at the end of the year”. He continued: “I've cancelled my invitation to the sports dinner to avoid anyone any sense of uneasiness, but please g...

8. [2014] NZEmpC 99 Robinson v Pacific Seals Ltd [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...responsive and communicative and that Mr Wilton had legitimate concerns about the length of time Mr Robinson needed for recovery and whether additional surgery would be required. It determined that: 4 Having considered Pacific Seals’ limited resources as a small business with respect to staffing, alongside the 11 month duration of Mr Robinson’s incapacity at that date, the length of time before planned surgery, as well as on-going uncertainty about when Mr Robinson wou...

9. [2014] NZEmpC 174 Workforce Development Ltd v Hill [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...acted, were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time the dismissal or action occurred. (3) In applying the test in subsection (2), … the court must consider – (a) whether, having regard to the resources available to the employer, the employer sufficiently investigated the allegations against the employee before dismissing or taking action against the employee; and (b) whether the employer raised the concerns that the e...

10. McLelland - Ngati Hine H2B (2011) 21 Taitokerau MB 57 (21 TTK 57) [pdf, 194 KB]

    ...present but it and the other cases cited by Mr Alderslade point the direction that the Court should take: Forester v Newlands (West Griqualand) Diamond Mines Ltd (1902) 18 TLR 497; Oliver v Dalgleish [1963] A11 ER 330; ANZ Nominees Ltd v Allied Resources Corporation Ltd (1984) 2 ACLC 783 and Clifton v Mount Morgan Ltd (1940) 40 SR (NSW) 31. [54] Accordingly, the irregularity in Mr Shortland moving the resolution is not fatal to the call for a poll vote. [55] But, more to the point...