Search Results

1. [2024] NZEmpC 247 Courage & Ors v Attorney-General & Ors and EMPC 85/2022 Pilgrim & Ors v Attorney-General & Ors [pdf, 235 KB]

   ...employers as well.3 For the second set of proceedings (which I will refer to as the Pilgrim proceedings) I found that an employment relationship existed,4 and that the employer was the person holding the position of Overseeing Shepherd.5 Leave to appeal that judgment has been granted by the Court of Appeal, on limited grounds.6 Special leave has been granted by this Court, in both Courage and Pilgrim, to remove proceedings against the Overseeing Shepherd for lost wages, penalti...

2. Hawira v Pomana - Succession to Te Au Pomana [2024] Chief Judge's MB 2004 (2024 CJ 2004) [pdf, 401 KB]

   ...that standard’s inherent flexibility that takes into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.12 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [15] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the power under s 44(1) of the Act falls into two parts:13 The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “erroneous in fact and law because of any mistake or omission on the part of the...

3. Hikatangata v Phillips - Succession to Te Rata Phillips [2025] Chief Judge's MB 408 (2025 CJ 408) [pdf, 350 KB]

   ...at [15]. 2025 Chief Judge's MB 422 into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.4 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [29] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the power under s 44(1) of the Act falls into two parts:5 The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “erroneous in fact or in law because of any mistake or omission on the part of the court...

4. [2025] NZEmpC 15 TradeZone Industrial Group Ltd v Stanton [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...entered into the settlement agreement if it had been aware of the alleged breaches, s 149(3)(ab) of the Act states the terms of a settlement agreement may not be cancelled under ss 36 to 40 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017. The Court of Appeal made obiter remarks on that provision in TUV v Chief of New Zealand Defence Force:7 We note in passing that s 149(3)(ab) may have the surprising, and presumably unintended, consequence of preventing cancellation of a settlement ag...

5. [2025] NZREADT 06 - UX v REAA (19 February 2025) [pdf, 292 KB]

   ...finance. The agency did not respond to the request to put in a more considered offer. This was despite the delay in the presentation of the offers to the vendors. Procedure [34] On 18 September 2024, the Tribunal issued Minute 1 directing the appeal be heard on the papers and setting a timetable. [35] In accordance with the timetable, the Registrar filed two bundles of documents, one unredacted and one redacted. Only the redacted bundle was served on the 11 complainan...

6. LCRO 180/2022 HB v UC and JW (26 November 2024) [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...December 2022) at [7]. 29 At [10]. Clause 20 of the Agreement does, in fact, refer to a Master Builders warranty. 30 At [12]. 31 Deliu v Connell [2016] NZHC 361, [2016] NZAR 475 at [2]. 9 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determination are entitled to a review based on the LCRO’s own opinion rather than on deference to the view of the Committee. A review by the LCRO is informal, inquisitorial and robust. It in...

7. Walters v Walters - Te Kohanga Lots 1 & 3 - 27 [2024] Chief Judge's MB 1357 (2024 CJ 1357) [pdf, 320 KB]

   ...that standard’s inherent flexibility that takes into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.2 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [14] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the power under s 44(1) falls into two parts:3 The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “erroneous in fact or in law because of any mistake or omission on the part of the court or the...

8. Cheng v Serco New Zealand Limited [2025] NZHRRT 11 [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...made against Mr Cheng. [49] However, there is no evidence that Serco’s failure in this regard had, or was likely to have had, any material impact on the outcome of Mr Cheng’s High Court litigation to date, nor on the outcome of subsequent appeals to the Court of Appeal. We further note that there appears to be no mention of the matter having been raised by Mr Cheng in the related judgments or minutes of the courts that were put before the Tribunal.17 Nor do the costs orders a...

9. [2025] NZREADT 15 – UJ v REAA (19 May 2025) [pdf, 164 KB]

   ...on an error of law or principle; (b) took account of irrelevant considerations; (c) failed to take account of a relevant consideration; or (d) was plainly wrong. Procedure [27] On 18 September 2024, the Tribunal issued Minute 1 directing the appeal be heard on the papers and setting a timetable for evidence and submissions. Minute 2 (30 October 2024) was issued setting a timetable for submissions on an interlocutory issue concerning redacted documents before the Registrar withh...

10. LCRO 30/2023 YO obo TM v EB (13 May 2025) [pdf, 218 KB]

    ...died and that Mr YO and Ms SM were appointed executors of Mrs TM’s will. Nature and scope of review [36] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:15 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determination are entitled to a review based on the LCRO’s own opinion rather than on deference to the view of the Committee. A review by the LCRO is informal, inquisitorial and robust. It invol...