Search Results

1. [2013] NZEmpC 18 Pathways Health Ltd v Moxon [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...rejected the offer and the costs of both parties had been wasted by going to trial. On this basis, costs might be awarded against such plaintiffs even though they had succeeded to an extent at trial. This principle has been endorsed by the Court of Appeal as particularly appropriate in employment litigation. 9 [19] In more recent times, this principle has been expanded so that offers to settle made by plaintiffs may be taken into account to increase an award of costs where the...

2. Deputy Registrar v Moeahu – Lot 1 DP 17494 Part Section 2345 New Plymouth (Old Railway Station) (2021) 437 Aotea MB 3 (437 AOT 3) [pdf, 550 KB]

   ...the trust property or out of the office of trust. 33 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, s 216 34 Rameka v Hall [2013] NZCA 203 at [29], citing Apatu v Trustees of Owhaoko C Trust – Owhaoko C1 and C2 [2010] Māori Appellate Court MB 34 (2010 APPEAL 34) at [16] 437 Aotea MB 23 [69] It is settled law that where there is a breach of trust, liability extends to loss caused directly or indirectly to the trust. In Rātima v Sullivan – Tataraakina C, the Court noted:35 [11]...

3. BORA Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill [pdf, 347 KB]

   ...inherent in setting social policy in complex areas suggest that Parliament should, in some circumstances, be allowed a degree of flexibility in such areas. This view is also supported by judgments of the Privy Council and the New Zealand Court of Appeal. 19 35. We note also the "deference" approach found throughout Canadian case law is persuasive, notably in M v H [1999] 2 SCR 3. The Court considered that the legislature's burden under the Charter: "…will [someti...

4. [2024] NZEnvC 080 Digital Signs Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 282 KB]

   ...April 2001. 5 [14] A judicial discretion, however broad, must be exercised on a principled basis even where there is no express statement of principles. The fundamental principles as to the making of declarations were set out by the Court of Appeal as follows (citations omitted):2 [141] It may be worth reiterating the fundamental principles. First, there must be an actual controversy between the parties (or as it is sometimes put, a real and not a theoretical question to be a...

5. [2015] NZEmpC 71 Knapp v Locktite Aluminium Specialities Ltd [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...be circumstances in which such an outcome is entirely consistent with the remedial scheme of the Act, including the Court’s jurisdiction to make such decisions or orders as in equity and good conscience it thinks fit. 8 And as the Court of Appeal observed in Ark Aviation Ltd: 9 The purpose of the direction to assess the nature and extent of remedies, including sums which in general must be awarded to reimburse lost wages according to what is thought just and equitable, is to e...

6. Huang v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 26 [pdf, 135 KB]

   ...accept that there is considerable force to the views expressed by Mr Nevill, a very experienced and highly regarded assessor. There is also support for those views in the general findings of the Hunn report and the jurisprudence of the Court of Appeal in the Sunset Terraces litigation.1 [23] I also note that in 1996, the BRANZ Good Stucco Practice Guide referred to “stucco failures” in the following manner;- “2.3 Stucco Failures” “2.3.1 Unfortunately, failures...

7. [2012] NZEmpC 20 White & Others v Reserve Bank of New Zealand [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...Clarke SCJ, delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court, affirmed: “The essential question in each case is what were the terms of the agreement.” 4 Lord Clarke expressed agreement with the judgment of Lord Justice Aikens in the Court of Appeal stating: [32] Aikens LJ stressed at paras [90]-[92] the importance of identifying what were the actual legal obligations of the parties. He expressly agreed with Smith LJ’s analysis of the legal position in Szilagyi’s 5 cas...

8. [2013] NZEmpC 228 Edwards v The Board of Trustees of Bay of Islands College [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...there are strong arguments for the maintenance of confidentiality unless waived by Ms Woolf. My decision on the facts of this case should not be seen as creating a class of privilege for union officials. As the recent judgment of the Court of Appeal in M v L [[1999] 1 NZLR 747] illustrates, there are many difficult problems in a class approach to the matter and that would [be] no less so in respect of union officials in employment law. Each case, including this, must be determined...

9. [2015] NZEmpC 188 Randwick Meat Co Ltd v Burns [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...removed by the Authority it should, in the exercise of its discretion, decline to refer the matter back to the Authority because both parties had indicated that any determination of the Authority on the unjustified dismissal claim would inevitably be appealed to the Court. Ms Buckett made the observation that the parties had attended "multiple mediations" as well as a judicial settlement conference, all to no avail. Discussion [27] I have given careful consideration to...

10. Auckland Standards Committee v Stirling [2010] NZLCDT 4 [pdf, 224 KB]

    ...authority of Atkinson v Auckland District Law Society (NZLPDT: 50/8/90, N Marque, Chair) preferring the approach in Australia in relation to a medical practitioner; Pillai v Messiter (No. 2) (1989) NSWLR 197, 200, a decision of the Australian Court of Appeal. In the C decision [33] the Court held: “To conclude, the Atkinson test adopted by the Tribunal incorrectly includes within the definition of professional misconduct falling within s.112(1)(c) and in other respects, is not par...