Search Results

1. [2011] NZEmpC 65 Zhou v Chief Executive of the Department of Labour [pdf, 62 KB]

   ...2 Choudry v Attorney-General [1999] 2 NZLR 582. information it is the very purpose of the claim to keep secret must be taken at face value. Ministers of the Crown giving such certificates as these bear a heavy responsibility to appraise themselves of the law and to give the issues arising careful, conscientious and independent consideration. They are accountable in their own arena for the exercise of their powers. Inspection, against a certificate o

2. [2009] NZEmpC CC 13/09 Port Otago Ltd v Maritime Union of NZ [pdf, 21 KB]

   ...run into opposition from the defendant and there is evidence to suggest that the union has now determined not to co-operate in any exercise conducted by the port company that may affect adversely its members. [4] Although the union denies being responsible itself, there is evidence that MUNZ members have recently adopted a co-ordinated strategy of “go slow” when working container ships at Port Chalmers. The inference is that this is a form of protest against the plaintiff’s p...

3. Horrobin v CAC30001 & Anor [2015] NZREADT 55 [pdf, 119 KB]

   ...the property to auction. The Committee has therefore concluded that: (i) The agent as agent and supervisor of licensee 2 should have ensured that the appropriate controls were in place to avoid such situations occurring and therefore must take responsibility for the situation that has occurred and the impact on the complainant.” [3] They therefore found Mr Horrobin guilty of unsatisfactory conduct. In their penalty decision dated 29 January 2015 the Complaints Assessment Committee...

4. Balabat v Sparks [2016] NZIACDT 16 (29 March 2016) [pdf, 120 KB]

   ...so). [9] The complaint concerns what Mr Sparks did, given the knowledge he had at the time, measured against the standards of professional conduct set by the Act and the Licensed Immigration Advisers Code of Conduct. In this jurisdiction, he is not responsible for what other people did. The extent of his responsibility in the professional disciplinary process is his personal actions, which may include direction and supervision of others (then his actions must be judged against his knowl...

5. [2014] NZEmpC 226 Lund South Ltd v Low [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...per hour then $340 per hour; the associate’s rate of $270 per hour then $285 per hour; and a solicitor’s rate of $155 per hour. 4 Lund South Ltd v Low [2014] NZEmpC 94. substantive hearing, which required further investigation and responses. Further discovery was provided by the employer which required consideration, analysis and investigation. There were a multitude of factual issues in dispute between the parties. The hearing also involved legal argument....

6. [2016] NZEmpC 44 G L Freeman Holdings Ltd v Belley (Labour Inspector) [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...not longer the case. [11] Accordingly, I directed that the various documents be served at the address given for the Director of the plaintiff, Mr G L Freeman. This duly occurred on 1 April 2016. [12] Twenty-one days have now elapsed. No response to the defendant’s application for costs has been filed and served on behalf of the plaintiff. [13] Counsel for the defendant submits that the plaintiff’s pattern of engagement with the Court mirrors its lack of engagement with...

7. [2014] NZEmpC 9 Gunning v Bankrupt Vehicle Sales and Finance Ltd [pdf, 30 KB]

   ...COSTS JUDGMENT OF JUDGE A A COUCH [1] I gave my substantive decision in this matter on 28 November 2013.1 [2] The manner in which this case was heard was unusual. Before the Authority, the defendant was represented by counsel. In response to the plaintiff’s challenge, the defendant filed a statement of defence but did not attend the hearing on 18 November 2013. Rather, by agreement, counsel for the defendant filed submissions. An affidavit of the defendant’s dire...

8. [2014] NZEmpC 31 Mayne v Polychem Marketing Ltd costs [pdf, 67 KB]

   ...employed the 2 ladies, while Mr Mayne’s position was in serious doubt as to whether he was ever employed by Polychem Marketing and generally as to his credibility, given the omission to get this vital fact correct. … Please let me have your response by 5.00pm next Monday 29 August 2011. (Emphasis added) [6] Mr Patterson replied to Mr Hannan’s email the same day seeking an extension of time to take instructions. Mr Hannan immediately responded: 12 noon Tuesday [30 August...

9. K v E LCRO 37 / 2009 (5 May 2009) [pdf, 17 KB]

   ...which occurred after that date. In general terms, issues of quality of service were not considered to be matters for the professional body prior to 1 August 2008. Matters of professional service since that date may be the basis for a regulatory response by the professional body (and in this case have been the subject of orders against Lawyer E). [5] The pre 1 August 2008 standards are found in ss 106 and 112 of the Law Practitioners Act 1982. The threshold for disciplinary interve...

10. ABV v VE LCRO 156 / 2011 (23 September 2011) [pdf, 77 KB]

    ...invoice reference, and the alleged “coercion” of the 3rd party by the Practitioner. The outcome sought by the Company was release of the signed quarry access agreement and the waiving of the fees charged by the Practitioner. [6] In his response to the complaints the Practitioner explained that the fees had been incorrectly apportioned and acknowledged that the costs charged to the Company were wrong. This was amended to $1,500.00 plus GST and office expenses, making a tota...