Search Results

1. [2010] NZEmpC 97 Evolution E-Business Ltd v Smith [pdf, 27 KB]

   ...COLGAN [1] There are two preliminary issues to be resolved before this case can go to hearing. The first is whether Evolution E-Business Ltd (Evolution) should be able to defend Benjamin Smith’s counterclaim because the time for filing a statement of defence to that has expired. The second issue is whether the company should give security for costs on its claims. [2] Should the plaintiff have leave to file out of time a statement of defence to the defendant’s counterclaim...

2. [2012] NZEmpC 49 Miller v Fonterra Co-Operative Group [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...indemnify him against losses he says he suffered and that his employer was in breach of contract. [3] Mr Miller wishes to use certain documentation in his proceedings in this Court. The documentation falls into three categories: (a) A witness statement and transcript of evidence given in District Court proceedings by one of the defendant’s former counsel (Mr Mehrtens) (document 76); (b) Three documents which are said to contain legal advice and which were created in co...

3. [2012] NZEmpC 188 ABC01 Ltd (formerly Primary Heart Care Ltd) v Dell [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...Dell’s account of his difficulties in dealing with the company during the period of his employment. [13] The time for challenging the Authority’s determination as of right expired on 7 September 2012. On 5 September 2012 Ngai Tupango sent a statement of claim to the Employment Relations Authority challenging its determination. This was the wrong recipient. Ngai Tupango’s Tane Rakau says that it supposed that its challenge would be lodged with the body whose decision was cha...

4. Steele v Community Leisure Centre Ltd (Strike-Out Application) [2019] NZHRRT 9 [pdf, 254 KB]

   ...The HRC did not accept the complaint on the ground that the behaviour complained of did not meet the threshold for sexual harassment, as it was neither repeated or of a particularly serious nature. [10] On 3 September 2016, Mr Steele emailed a statement of correction which he sought to have attached to the WAC incident report pursuant to information privacy principle 7: Privacy Act 1993, s 6. This statement, which was sent to Mr Linklater, the WAC Facility Manager, to counsel for the...

5. BU v B Ltd [2023] NZDT 158 (20 June 2023) [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...innocent or fraudulent, made by another party to that contract they are entitled to damages in the same manner and to the same extent as if the representation was a term of the contract that had been broken. 6. Under the law, a representation is a statement of fact made during the course of negotiations before a contract is made. A misrepresentation arises where a false representation has been made. For a false representation to give rise to an action in misrepresentation it must be a...

6. Delamere v Jiang [2017] NZIACDT 1 (17 February 2017) [pdf, 295 KB]

   ...Consultants in any capacity since July 2015”; and [21.2] that he “had no capacity to comply with” the Registrar’s statutory demand to deliver the whole file. [22] In the course of cross-examination, the Registrar established that Mr Jiang’s claims were not true because Mr Jiang was the sole director of Sea Consultants at all material times, including when he gave his evidence affirming the truth of those statements. [23] Furthermore, his mother was the sole shareholde...

7. Bevan-Smith v One New Zealand Group Ltd (Strike Out) [2024] NZHRRT 48 [pdf, 583 KB]

   1 DECISION OF TRIBUNAL STRIKING OUT CLAIM1 [1] In March 2022, Doctor Bevan-Smith asked Vodafone New Zealand Limited (now named One New Zealand Group Limited (One NZ)) “whether or not it holds any information concerning communications about me with the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) and/or the Government Communications Security Bureau 1 This decision is to be cited as Bevan-Smith v One New Zealand Group Ltd (Strike Out) [2024] NZHRRT 48. IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRI

8. Rafiq v Civil Aviation Authority [2013] NZHRRT 10 [pdf, 132 KB]

   ...under the Privacy Act 1993. The proceedings in HRRT040/2011 cited the “Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand” as defendant while the proceedings in HRRT041/2011 cited the “Civil Aviation Authority of England operating in New Zealand”. The statements of claim are, in part, almost identical. Neither are models of clarity and are difficult to follow. They have been understood as making complaints that the defendants breached: [2.1] Principle 6 of the information privacy princip...

9. [2014] NZEmpC 182 Fletcher v Sharp Studhope Lawyers [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...additional issues, which have been put to one side for present purposes. [4] Mr Fletcher has also pursued a strike out application, on the ground that STL has no standing in this Court. The basis for that contention is that STL failed to file a statement in reply in the Authority within the timeframe specified in the Employment Relations Authority Regulations 2000 (namely within 14 days of service of the statement of problem on STL). 1 [5] Accordingly, there are two applicatio...

10. Reekie v Corrections (Extension of Time) [2018] NZHRRT 15 [pdf, 73 KB]

    ...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 served on him or her, file in the office of the Tribunal a statement of reply to the plaintiff’s claim and must serve a copy of the statement of reply on the plaintiff and any other party. [2] In the present case the statement of reply was due to be filed on 20 April 2018. 1 [This decis...