Search Results

1. LCRO 46/2016 Richard Zhao v Yu Sun and Li Wang (7 May 2020) [pdf, 133 KB]

   ...consent for the review to be completed on the papers. [32] Nothing further was heard from Mr Deliu or Mr Zhao, and an update on the course of the litigation was sought by this Office on 1 March 2017. [33] On 4 July 2017, Mr Zhao advised that he was appealing an adverse decision by the Court in respect of a strike-out application brought by him. He requested that in the meantime, the review proceed. [34] Mr Zhao provided a copy of the High Court judgment15 on 12 December 2017. [...

2. LCRO 64/2020 - QR - Application for review of a prosecutorial decision (7 September 2020) [pdf, 219 KB]

   ...Acts) is beyond the jurisdiction of this Office. Neither the Standards Committee or this Office can undertake to do this. [59] The decision as to what constitutes the best forum in which to examine matters was commented on by the Court of Appeal in Orlov v New Zealand Law Society where the Court held that there was no threshold test to meet before matters could be referred to the Tribunal.16 The Court also held:17 … a decision [to lay charges] does not determine the outcome...

3. [2013] NZEmpC 34 Baker v St John Central Regional Trust Board [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...Baker was not obliged to accept work, as she accepted in evidence. Indeed from time to time she declined work even though she had previously indicated her availability. In Clark v Oxfordshire Health Authority 7 the English and Wales Court of Appeal held that a nurse, who had no obligation to accept hours offered (and likewise the employer had no obligation to offer work), was effectively a casual employee. The nurse had worked casual engagements for the Health Authority for over...

4. [2013] NZEmpC 175 Tranzit Coachlines Wairarapa v Morgan & Wilson [pdf, 171 KB]

   ...plaintiff, referred us to three authorities which have given consideration to s 12 of the Holidays Act. They are of assistance as to the approach to be adopted although the context of these cases is different from the present. [19] The Court of Appeal considered s 12 in New Zealand Fire Service Commission v New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union. 3 That case involved issues relating to public holidays of a different kind to the present. However, on s 12 the Court stated...

5. [2017] NZEmpC 45 Ports of Auckland Ltd v Findlay [pdf, 125 KB]

   ...their course without undue interruption and delay. A stop-start approach to an investigative and disciplinary process which invites intervention along the way from the Authority; the Employment Court on a challenge; and potentially the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court by way of further appeal; is plainly undesirable for public policy reasons. [24] In the present case, a number of concerns have been raised as to the propriety of aspects of the employer’s process, some of whic...

6. Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 403) v Drever [2016] NZREADT 72 [pdf, 131 KB]

   ...of Charged Conduct Nature of Conduct Substantive Decision Penalty Decision CA4825587 January–February 2011 Conduct relating to instructions for sale by auction 22 August 2011 Unsatisfactory conduct 4 November 2011 Censured (appealed by Complainant; settlement reached) CB5858318 November 2011 Did not provide Guides, provided insufficient information relating to subdivision, did not insert material particulars on sale and purchase agreement, did not advise...

7. [2022] NZREADT 28 - Harris (14 December 2022) [pdf, 136 KB]

   ...text refers to a letter dated 9 May 2022 from the Registrar. This is a mistaken reference to the Registrar’s letter of 6 May 2022. 4 it had not been reported. He was advised to send proof by 5 pm that day, otherwise he would have to appeal to the Tribunal. [11] Mr Harris accessed an online verifiable training provider and completed the training on 24 May 2022. Prior to 5 pm that day, he duly provided the record of completing 20 hours of training on the same day.2...

8. [2013] NZEmpC 171 Fifita v Dunedin Casinos Ltd [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...difficult when non-monetary remedies, particularly reinstatement, are sought or where the plaintiff’s legitimate interest in the outcome includes non-monetary components, such as reputation or vindication. This has been recognised by the Court of Appeal in a number of cases but what was said in those cases and the approach to be taken was summarised in Bluestar Print Group (NZ) Ltd v Mitchell 6 : [17] The starting point is that reg 68(1) of the regulations provides that the Cou...

9. Austen v Far North District Council - Okahu 3B2A and Okahu 3B2B2D (2022) 252 Taitokerau MB 87 (252 TTK 87) [pdf, 284 KB]

   ...additional jurisdiction.16 14 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, Preamble and s 2(1). 15 Above n 13, s 2(2). 16 See Mikaere-Toto v Te Reti B and C Residue Trust – Te Reti B and Te Reti C Block (2014) Māori Appellate Court MB 249 (2014 APPEAL 249), and Nikora v Tuhoe Te Uru Taumatua (2020) 2020 Māori Appellate Court MB 248 (2020 APPEAL 248). 252 Taitokerau MB 97 [39] Also, s 24A does not expressly limit the Court’s jurisdiction under s 18(1)(d) of TTWMA. In...

10. National Standards Committee 1 v Peters [2019] NZLCDT 39 [pdf, 248 KB]

    ...conduct and thus this question would be answered affirmatively. Issue 3 – Continuation of Interim Suppression Order [45] We accept the submission of both counsel that wider publication ought not to occur until the trial is concluded and all appeal rights exhausted. When there is an adverse finding about a practitioner’s conduct involving the media the Tribunal should be careful to protect against its decision repeating the conduct until the matters of concern are concluded....