Search Results

1. Deputy Registrar v Pacey - Te Murera Ruka [2016] Chief Judge's MB 963 (2016 CJ 963) [pdf, 307 KB]

   ...5 Ashwell – Rawinia or Lavinia Ashwell (nee Russell) [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209 (2009 CJ 209) at [15]. 6 Tau v Nga Whanau o Morven & Glenavy – Waihao 903 Section IX Block [2010] Maori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167) at [61]. 2016 Chief Judge’s MB 972 applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. Discussion [20] In the context of this case, and in exercising my jurisdiction under s...

2. [2016] NZEmpC 103 Lewis v Silver Fern Farms Ltd [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...to avoid the consequences of scheduling the work for, or carrying it out, on Monday, 27 October 2014. Discussion [19] In New Zealand Fire Service Commission v New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union, the majority of the Court of Appeal held: 5 Whether a day would otherwise be a working day is an intensely practical question. In the first instance, employers and employees have to try to agree on the answer; s 12(2). And the factors they are bound to take into acc...

3. Rangihuna v The Trustees of the Te Rimu Trust - Te Rimu Trust (2010) 10 Tairawhiti MB 137 (10 TRW 137) [pdf, 123 KB]

   ...10 See In Re Whakapaupakihi 139 Gis 260 where the one man and one vote rule was followed 11 (1995) 18 Waikato Maniapoto Appellate MB 262 (18 APWM 262) 12 (2010) 2010 Maori Appellate Court MB 55 (2010 APPEAL 55) 10 Tairawhiti MB 145 Middle 4A2A Trust (2010) case is instructive and adopted for this case. It is reproduced below: ... At common law a vote on a show of hands means that each person present and entitled to vote,

4. Wellington Standards Committee 2 v Collins [2022] NZLCDT 22 (30 June 2022) [pdf, 170 KB]

   ...been reached in this particular instance. (b) Negligence [67] The definition of negligence was discussed in the leading case of W v Auckland Standards Committee 3, in which Duffy J was upheld in her description of negligence by the Court of Appeal: “We see no error in the approach which Duffy J adopted in the present case of considering whether reasonable members of the public, informed of all relevant circumstances, would view W’s conduct as tending to bring the profession...

5. Zhang v Samsung Electronics New Zealand Ltd (Strike Out Application) [2023] NZHRRT 42 [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...those grounds apply have been added to the HRA compels the conclusion that Parliament has been very deliberate in what will and will not amount to unlawful discrimination.14 The Tribunal’s reasoning on this point was described by the High Court on appeal as “unassailable”.15 [38] Part 2 of the HRA does not confer a universal right to be free from discrimination. Rather, it only provides protection against discrimination in certain areas of activity such as in employment,16...

6. CS v HT and LM LCRO 25/2013, 50/2013 and 51/2013 (24 June 2014) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...the prospects of success; and  neither Mr HT nor Mrs LM had advised him of the potential for a claim under the Family Protection Act. [35] He also alleged that Mr HT was seemingly uninterested in providing advice with regard to any potential appeal. This complaint is of course a new matter which was not addressed by the Standards Committee and therefore cannot be included in this review. This would include any complaint that neither Mr HT nor Mrs LM had advised him of the opt...

7. [2009] NZEmpC WC 10/09 Terson Industries Ltd v Loder [pdf, 54 KB]

   ...being what the parties using those words against the relevant background would reasonably have been understood to mean. 7 Mount Joy Farms Ltd v Kiwi South Island Co-operative Dairies Ltd (Court of Appeal, CA297/00, 6 December 2001) at para 38, per Hammond J for the Court 8 Hansells (NZ) Ltd v Ma [2007] ERNZ 637 at para [35] 9 Association of Staff in Tertiary Education Inc v Hampton, Chief Executive of the Bay of Plenty Polytechnic [20...

8. Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee 2 v Deobhakta [2013] NZLCDT 55 (18 December 2013) [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...subsequent investigation and hearing will identify, and then a charge will be framed and laid. As a consequence the facts, matters and particulars of charge may well extend further than what was said in the complaint itself. [17] The Court of Appeal commented on this issue in Orlov v New Zealand Law Society & Ors10 – “… a decision under s 152(2)(a) does not determine the outcome of the complaint. It only determines which body should be seized of it. The decision...

9. Pou v May - Estate of Tame Horomona [2018] Chief Judge's MB 634 (2018 CJ 634) [pdf, 334 KB]

   ...Glenavy - Waihao 903 Section IX Block.2 I do not propose to repeat those principles again in this judgment. 1 [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209-225 (2009 CJ 209) 2 [2010] Maori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167) 2018 Chief Judge’s MB 641 [8] However, for the benefit of the parties, I note that section 44 explicitly refers to situations where the Court has made an incorrect decision due to a flaw in the evidence presented,...

10. [2018] NZEmpC 98 Ovation NZ Ltd v The NZ Meat Workers and Related Trades Union [pdf, 343 KB]

    ...claim. [16] This distinction will need to be considered with reference to the question of whether the documents which are sought are or are not “relevant’ in the legal sense. This term is defined in reg 38, which was discussed by the Court of Appeal in ASB Bank Ltd v Nel when it said:7 The test for disclosure under reg 38 of the Employment Court Regulations 2000 is broad and based on the Peruvian Guano test ... The wording of the regulation is wide and includes documents tha...