Search Results

1. Director of Human Rights Proceedings [NKR] v Accident Compensation Corporation (Strike-Out Application) [2014] NZHRRT 1 [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...Chairperson Mr GJ Cook JP, Member Mr BK Neeson, Member REPRESENTATION: Ms JM Ryan for Plaintiff Mr J Edwards Defendant Ms K Evans for Privacy Commissioner DATE OF DECISION: 30 January 2014 DECISION OF TRIBUNAL STRIKING OUT PARTS OF STATEMENT OF CLAIM Introduction [1] In proceedings brought under s 82(2) of the Privacy Act 1993 by the Director of Human Rights Proceedings it is alleged that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) breached Rule 11 of the Health I...

2. [2022] NZEmpC 52 Fechney v Employment Relations Authority [pdf, 382 KB]

   ...people who was challenging the application of the mandates was GF, a former employee of New Zealand Customs Service (Customs), whose employment was terminated after GF did not get the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine within the time mandated. GF’s claim of unjustifiable dismissal was considered by the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) which first issued a determination dismissing GF’s claim on 31 August 2021 (the “original determination”). As explained in this j...

3. Bisschoff v Yerman [2015] NZIACDT 101 (11 December 2015) [pdf, 165 KB]

   ...evaluate whether Ms Yerman had a right to retain some, or all, of the fee she received. That will require a review of the provisions that require licensed immigration advisers to charge fair and reasonable fees. The Complaint [5] The Registrar filed a statement of complaint; it set out a factual narrative, and identified four potential grounds for complaint (as outlined above). The main elements of the factual background in the Statement of Complaint were as follows: [5.1] The Bisscho...

4. [2019] NZEmpC 11 Hawkes Bay District Health Board v Trewick [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...Bay District Health Board (the Board) has applied to the Court for leave to file a challenge out of time. [2] The determination of the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) was issued on 3 January 2019.1 [3] The Board sought to file a statement of claim raising a de novo challenge on 1 February 2019, believing that the 28-day limitation period expired on 4 February 2019, having regard to the applicable legislative provisions.

5. [2015] NZEmpC 35 Coy v Commissioner of Police [pdf, 592 KB]

   ...pleadings [15] These determine the issues between the parties. They are particularly important in this case because the evidence has ranged both widely and intensively over the last 10 years of the plaintiff’s employment. [16] The latest operative statement of claim is the plaintiff’s third amended statement of claim dated 13 October 2011, allowed by leave after the hearing had commenced (albeit to take the evidence of overseas-based witnesses) in August 2010. This third am...

6. [2015] NZEmpC 147 Rodkiss v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd [pdf, 268 KB]

   ...NZEmpC 34. maintenance department of approximately 30 employees. He brought proceedings in the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) claiming that on 16 April 2013 he had been constructively dismissed by the defendant. He also claimed that during the course of his employment he had been subjected to certain disadvantage grievances. [3] In a determination dated 28 November 2013, the Authority rejected Mr Rodkiss' constructive dismissal claim but upheld his t...

7. 2022-02-11 Statement of Evidence of Edward Ellison dated 11 February 2022 [pdf, 692 KB]

   ...significance directed by the Minister for the Environment to be referred to the Environment Court under section 142(2)(b) of the RMA AND IN THE MATTER of an application under section 149T of the RMA OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL Applicant STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF EDWARD ELLISON ON BEHALF OF OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL AND KĀI TAHU KI OTAGO URBAN PROVISIONS: PARTS A AND G 11 February 2022 Applicant's Solicitor PO Box 4341 CHRISTCHURCH 8140 DX WX1...

8. [2010] NZEmpC 80 Willis v Fonterra Cooperative Group Ltd [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...remain in force for a period of 6 months from 19 September 2007. [4] The plaintiff had subsequently undergone comprehensive retraining on the permit policy. However, the plaintiff was aggrieved at having received the written warning because he claimed that he was not aware that the area in which he had been found was covered by the permit policy and it was an area where others had gone to on other occasions. He claims to have been told by Mr Purser that in such circumstances e...

9. Q Ltd v F Ltd [2023] NZDT 659 (30 November 2023) [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...amount of $552.00, was provided by the Applicant to adjust for the agreement reached relating to the flashing and, a revised invoice of $16,339.00 was issued to the Respondent. The Respondent has not paid that invoice. 6. The Applicant brings a claim against the Respondent in the Tribunal seeking damages of $19,759.34, being a payment of $16,339.00 owing under the invoice, and debt collection costs incurred of $3,420.34. 7. The issues to be determined are: a. Did the Applic...

10. [2007] NZEmpC WC 1/07 Hunter v National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd [pdf, 49 KB]

    ...Hunter relies upon the proper construction of the sick leave provisions in the collective agreement to establish an arguable case. He conceded that on the face of the documents filed with the Authority, the causes and remedies contained in the statement of problem and statement of claim filed in this Court do not immediately show a nexus with the orders sought in the interlocutory application. That, he submits, is a result of the general way in which employment relationship proble...