Search Results

1. [2012] NZEmpC 119 LI v Huang [pdf, 57 KB]

   ...Authority also found that Mr Huang commenced full-time work with the plaintiff on 1 June 2011 pursuant to an individual employment agreement dated 16 May 2011 but he never received any remuneration during the term of his employment. [3] Mr Li had claimed before the Authority that the offer of employment was conditional on Mr Huang producing a copy of his work permit and a police clearance from China and as he had never produced either document to the plaintiff there was never an...

2. [2016] NZEmpC 95 Pretorius v Marra Construction (2004) Ltd [pdf, 270 KB]

   ...Quantity Surveyor on a large, joint venture construction project in 2007 to 2010. His employer, Marra Construction (2004) Limited (Marra) says it has paid all monies it agreed to pay. It also contends that in any event Mr Pretorius’ claims have been brought out of time and are therefore statute barred. It is this issue which the Court is required to resolve. The procedural background [2] The Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) investigated the time limit...

3. [2011] NZEmpC 1 Gyenge v Clifford Lamar Limited [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...defendant in connection with her hairdressing training. She refused to pay the invoice and initiated a personal grievance in the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) alleging that she had been constructively dismissed. The defendant counterclaimed in respect of the $5069.24 invoice. [2] In a determination dated 17 May 2010 1 the Authority Member concluded that Ms Gyenge had not been “dismissed, constructively or in any other way, from her employment” and that s...

4. RC v ZN LCRO 74/2012 (21 July 2015) [pdf, 55 KB]

   ...Client Care Rules, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, or other professional standards. In that case, I came to the view that such a state of affairs should be reported in any event and should not be used as a means of having certain adverse statements made in an affidavit about the complaining lawyer removed. I reached the view that this constituted an “improper purpose”. An improper purpose could otherwise be defined as being a purpose which a person is not otherwise ent...

5. [2023] NZEmpC 18 Cronin-Lampe v The Board of Trustees of Melville High School [pdf, 254 KB]

   ...consequence, they suffered harm in various respects, including post-traumatic stress disorder from dealing with multiple student suicides and other circumstances they say were very challenging. The Board strongly opposes all Mr and Mrs Cronin-Lampe’s claims. [3] More particular details of the claims, defences, and a counter-claim are outlined in the pleadings. Counsel have agreed on a statement of issues with which the Court largely agreed. In my minute of 10 June 2021, I confi...

6. Leef - Panguru A61B1 (2023) 267 Taitokerau MB 107 (267 TTK 107) [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...limited comments made but those statements are obiter and do not assist here. See Re Cooper [1993] DC Tauranga FDN070/89/93; Re Kiriona (dec) (1989) HC Wellington A429/85; Grace 267 Taitokerau MB 112 [18] This Court’s jurisdiction to consider claims under the TPA was enacted through amendment to s 5 of the TPA. There was no corresponding amendment to the test under s 3 of the TPA. Although this Court now has concurrent jurisdiction to consider claims concerning Māori freeh...

7. Cook v Legacy Church [2023] NZHRRT 31 [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...Certificate dated 4 February 2020 confirming that an investigation into Ms Cook’s complaint against Legacy Church had been discontinued. [4] On the face of that Certificate, the first of several requirements under s 83 of the PA 1993 enabling a claim to be made in this Tribunal was met (namely that a complaint had been made to the Privacy Commissioner). [5] This proceeding was then filed in the Tribunal naming Legacy Church as the first defendant and Legacy Trust as the second def...

8. CU v EM & ors [2024] NZDT 272 (2 May 2024) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...APPLICANT CU RESPONDENT EM SECOND RESPONDENT DQ THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT RESPONDENT ED THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT RESPONDENT H Ltd THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT RESPONDENT KX The Tribunal orders: The claim is struck out. Reasons 1. CU is a farmer based in [town]. 2. In 2018, CU was interested in investing for his future. He did some research and came across the website of EM, a [country 1] based business. 3. The website s...

9. Vikashwarjeet v Devi [2014] NZIACDT 27 (17 March 2014) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...withheld information about the character issue, which was not her fault. [5] The Tribunal has accepted the account given by the complainants and upheld the complaint. The complaint [6] The material allegations in the complaint were set out in the Statement of Claim. The key elements being: [6.1] The complainants approached the adviser to assist with seeking a visitor’s visa for the parents of one of the complainants. [6.2] At the initial meeting, the complainants explained to th...

10. Hearings

    ...you to explain some points. The hearing of your insurer’s evidence. As with the hearing of your evidence, you or your advocate will have the chance to ask questions of the insurer. Submissions hearing. This is when both parties present their closing statements. These statements outline the main points of their case, and are based on a written submission already provided. The Tribunal decision. The Tribunal will issue a decision as soon as possible following the submissions hearing. Some...

    Located in:

    1. Tribunals >
    2. Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal >
    3. What happens next