Search Results

1. MSC v Scholes [2013] NZIACDT 71 (25 November 2013) [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...fact in the complaint concerned when Ms Scholes ascertained that the complainant had already passed an IELTS test at level 7.5, which was more than sufficient to meet the English language requirements for nursing in New Zealand. [18] The complainant claimed that she had told Ms Scholes at a meeting in February 2011. Ms Scholes said she found out in an email of 2 May 2011, and not before that. [19] The Tribunal found Ms Scholes’ explanation unpersuasive. However, that was not the basis...

2. [2007] NZEmpC AK 40/07 Clear v Waikato DHB [pdf, 60 KB]

   ...whether the Court would effectively need to conduct what amounts to a de novo hearing. The relevance of such an eventuality to the application for leave in the present case, where almost identical considerations apply, is made plain in the following statement of Judge Travis in Woud: [17] What saves the matter in the present case was the fact that the determination was not complete until the final determination and the challenge against the determination of remedies was filed in a...

3. [2016] NZEmpC 105 Caffe Coffee (NZ) Ltd v Farrimond [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...meeting. 2 Caffe Coffee now submits that it should be awarded $7,000, applying the Authority’s daily tariff of $3,500 for the two day hearing. [4] For Mr Farrimond it is submitted that he substantially succeeded in resisting Caffe Coffee’s claims so that he should be regarded as the successful party; and that the conduct of the company was such that it increased the length of the trial and thereby the costs which Mr Farrimond incurred. He also asserts that Caffe Coffee unrea...

4. [2016] NZEmpC 137 Bennett and Others v Michaels and Others [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...pierce the corporate veil in respect of the second, third and fourth defendants (who were respondents before the Authority) in order to show that it was in fact Mr Michaels who was the true employer of the three plaintiffs and that liability for the claims rested with him. In addition, the plaintiffs claimed that they had a personal grievance for having been unjustifiably constructively dismissed and were owed wages for the periods when they were employed either by Mr Michaels or o...

5. [2019] NZEmpC 55 Samuels v Employment Relations Authority [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...Judgment: 13 May 2019 CONSENT INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE CHRISTINA INGLIS (Application to strike out part of the pleadings) [1] By minute dated 12 April 2019, I directed the applicant to file and serve any amended statement of claim, together with an application for leave to file out of time, no later than 4.30 pm on Tuesday 23 April 2019. Failing that, the application by Ms Catran, counsel assisting the Court, to strike out parts of the stateme...

6. [2012] NZEmpC 91 Ball v Healthcare of NZ Ltd [pdf, 132 KB]

   ...failed to progress her proceedings with diligence, and that this is relevant to a determination of her application. She pointed to the fact that an “unless” order had been made by the Court following a failure to file a compliant statement of claim in this Court and that the hearing was subsequently adjourned at the request of counsel for the plaintiff. I agree with Mr Ryan that any failures on his behalf 8 to meet timetabling orders made by the Court, and an adjournment gran...

7. Murphy v Ministry of Social Development (Extension of time) [2017] NZHRRT 15 [pdf, 139 KB]

   ...Member Mr RK Musuku, Member REPRESENTATION: Mr J Murphy in person Mr P Gunn for defendant DATE HEARING: Heard on the papers DATE OF DECISION: 1 May 2017 DECISION OF TRIBUNAL GRANTING DEFENDANT EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING STATEMENT OF REPLY 1 [1] Regulation 15(1) of the Human Rights Review Tribunal Regulations 2002 provides that a defendant who intends to defend proceedings must, within 30 days after the day on which the notice of proceedings is serve...

8. Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Corrections (Extension of Time) [2017] NZHRRT 16 [pdf, 139 KB]

   ...Member REPRESENTATION: Mr R Kee, Director of Human Rights Proceedings Mr P Gunn for defendant DATE HEARING: Heard on the papers DATE OF DECISION: 1 May 2017 DECISION OF TRIBUNAL GRANTING DEFENDANT EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING STATEMENT OF REPLY 1 [1] Regulation 15(1) of the Human Rights Review Tribunal Regulations 2002 provides that a defendant who intends to defend proceedings must, within 30 days after the day on which the notice of proceedings is ser...

9. ABC v ZZB [2013] NZDT 34 (25 March 2013) [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...the claim was first submitted. CX also told the claims handlers that she had the iPhone in her hand when it was stolen because she was speaking to ABC at the time. This had not been mentioned by ABC. The letter stated that these conflicting statements meant that false information had been supplied in support of the claim and therefore the entire claim was invalid. The letter concluded that the failure to obtain a written report from the police, or local government authorities, m...

10. [2014] NZEmpC 153 Roy v BOT of Tamaki College [pdf, 131 KB]

    ...1 Roy v Board of Trustees of Tamaki College [2013] NZERA Auckland 514. [5] There are, from the documents, a number of potential dates which may be said to be the date of his alleged constructive dismissal. First, in a “Statement of Service” written by the school’s Principal on letterhead and dated 24 September 2010, the school said that Mr Roy was employed until 24 September 2010. A recent statement from the Ministry of Education’s payroll service, kn...