Search Results

1. [2011] NZEmpC 86 Wilson v ABC Developmental Learning Centres NZ Ltd [pdf, 71 KB]

   ...day’s hearing. [14] In reaching that conclusion, I have had regard to Ms Douglas’ submission that some of the time spent by the plaintiff’s counsel was unnecessary. In particular Ms Douglas referred to time involved in preparing an amended statement of claim ordered by the Court to remedy deficiencies in the original document and time spent briefing the evidence of witnesses not called. I agree that costs associated with such activities were not reasonably incurred but it is...

2. [2010] NZEmpC 72 Horton v Fonterra Cooperative Group Ltd [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...allegation and the risk of dismissal and stated he was entitled to be represented. The meeting was later rescheduled. [19] Mr Purser had declined the request of Mr Horton’s representative, Neil Clough an EPMU delegate, to provide copies of any statements before the first investigation meeting which took place on 14 May. At that meeting Messrs Horton and Clough say they were given a copy of the statements made by Mr Jepsen and Mr Catling and was told to go away and read these....

3. [2014] NZEmpC 50 Stevens v Hapag Lloyd interlocutory [pdf, 51 KB]

   ...Plaintiff AND ANGELIQUE STEVENS Defendant Hearing: On the papers dated 10, 18 and 27 March 2014 Judgment: 27 March 2014 INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT OF JUDGE CHRISTINA INGLIS [1] Ms Stevens applies for leave to file a statement of defence out of time. The application relates to Hapag-Lloyd (NZ) Limited’s challenge to a costs determination of the Employment Relations Authority. 1 The costs challenge is to be heard together with the defendant’...

4. Nepe v Hill and Woodville (Extension of Time) [2022] NZHRRT 26 [pdf, 493 KB]

   ...filed a claim against Ms Hill and Woodville Districts Vision Incorporated (Woodville). The claim was served on Ms Hill and Woodville by email on the same day. [2] Regulation 15(1) of the Human Rights Review Tribunal Regulations 2002 required the statements of reply to be filed by 22 June 2022, being 22 working days after the day on which the proceeding was served on the defendants. [3] Woodville filed its statement of reply on 21 June 2022. A statement of reply was sent to the Trib...

5. [2020] NZEmpC 203 A Labour Inspector v Chhoir [pdf, 331 KB]

   ...During the course of submissions, a further issue arose which was unanticipated by the parties and which I allowed further submissions to be filed on. It is convenient to deal with that issue first. It relates to the admissibility of statements made to the Labour Inspector by the first defendant during the course of the Labour Inspector’s investigation. Admissibility of statements made to the Labour Inspector [5] The Labour Inspector may exercise a number of powers un...

6. MI Ltd v QD Ltd [2022] NZDT 205 (18 July 2022) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...presented to the Tribunal by the parties. Did the respondents make misrepresentations about the reformer bed? 4. Section 35 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act (CCLA) states that where one party is induced to enter into a contract by misstatements made by the other party, the first party is entitled to damages. A misrepresentation is a representation of present or past fact that is false. 5. The CCLA does not allow a party who is induced to enter into a contract for a privat...

7. [2012] NZEmpC 185 Yang v L E Builders Ltd [pdf, 165 KB]

   ...7 See the discussion on this point in Cardy Business Ltd v Bizaoui (2005) 2 NZELR 245 at [21]-[26]. or not Mr Yang was an employee, the Court could nevertheless proceed to determine the substantive claim. This was characterised as a claim for unjustified dismissal. Mr Hucker contended that the Court’s jurisdiction to do so arises from s 179(1) of the Act, and consistently with the approach adopted by the full Court in Abernethy v Dyn

8. Gupta v Dhar [2016] NZIACDT 65 (4 October 2016) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...agreement. The Registrar required Mr Dhar to provide a copy of the agreement. He was unable to do so. The complainant says there was no agreement. [18] Initially, Mr Dhar said in his statement of reply that the complainant was not a client. That claim is incomprehensible, as the statement of complaint is accompanied by close to 400 pages of documents that on their face indicated that Mr Dhar was providing the complainant with immigration services. [19] When required to file an aff...

9. Edwards v Capital and Coast DHB (Strike-Out Application) [2016] NZHRRT 20 [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...White for defendant DATE OF HEARING: 17 May 2016 DATE OF LAST SUBMISSIONS: 30 May 2016 and 1 June 2016 (second plaintiff); 3 June 2016 (defendant) DATE OF DECISION: 8 June 2016 DECISION OF TRIBUNAL STRIKING OUT SECOND PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF CLAIM 1 1 [This decision is to be cited as: Edwards v Capital and Coast DHB (Strike-Out Application) [2016] NZHRRT 20. Note publication restrictions. Thos...

10. [2025] NZREADT 21 – BS & QS v Upton (16 June 2025) [pdf, 270 KB]

    ...(i) the unsatisfactory conduct is more than a minor or technical contravention of this Act or of any regulations or rules made under this Act; and (ii) the order is one that a court of competent jurisdiction could make in relation to a similar claim in accordance with principles of law. (5) If a Complaints Assessment Committee refers a matter to the Tribunal under section 93(1)(ha), the Tribunal may, if satisfied that the requirements of subsection (4)(b) (except paragraph (b)(i)) ar...