Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee v Holmes [2011] NZLCDT 31 [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...response to a question from the Tribunal, Mr Pidgeon said in his opinion the offending in this matter was less serious than that of W in the recent High Court case1 which related to breach of an undertaking. In that case the NZLS had successfully appealed a decision of the Tribunal which had determined that the conduct had not reached the threshold of misconduct. The High Court found W was guilty of negligence or incompetence in his professional capacity that has been of such degre...

2. OIA-120876.pdf [pdf, 933 KB]

   ...Total 1 2 3 Wairoa District Court 2 2 2016 1 1 2017 1 1 Waitākere District Court 2015 1 1 2016 1 2 3 2017 1 1 2018 2 2 2019 1 8 9 2020 3 3 2022 1 1 2022 1 1 2023 1 1 2025 1 1 Total 3 20 23 Court of Appeal (Wellington) 2021 1 1 2022 1 1 RE LE AS ED U ND ER T HE O FF IC IA L IN FO RM AT IO N AC T 19 82 Courthouse Number of Ministry staff members assaulted Number of non-staff members as...

3. [2025] NZEmpC 261 Van Heerden v Longevity Construction Limited [pdf, 231 KB]

   ...the High Court Rules 2016 sets out the situations where the Court may strike out proceedings. It applies to this Court via reg 6 of the Employment Court Regulations 2000.13 It provides:14 12 Although dealing with an application to bring an appeal out of time, the Supreme Court made helpful observations about the necessarily superficial nature of any consideration of the merits of cases at an interlocutory stage in Almond v Read [2017] NZSC 80, [2017] 1 NZLR 801 at [39]. 13 Emp...

4. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Gardner [2017] NZLCDT 17 [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...required is "more than" mere negligence (noting that mere negligence may now meet the s 214(b) test for unacceptable conduct). Section 214(c) in the Act is equivalent to ss 106(3)(c) and 112(1)(c) of the 1982 Act. I repeat what the Court of Appeal said in the Auckland W of what was then s 112(1)(c) negligence: [41] ... It is common ground that not every act of negligence will be such as to warrant disciplinary action. That is plain from the use of the words "of such a d...

5. LCRO 82/2024 OB v SA (11 November 2025) [pdf, 171 KB]

   ...review has been conducted on the papers with the consent of both parties.16 Nature and scope of review [42] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:17 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 invo...

6. Waitangi Tribunal theme G - Public works takings of Māori land [pdf, 1.4 MB]

   Rangahaua Whanui National Theme g PUBLIC WORKS TAKINGS OF MAORI LAND, 1840–1981 CATHY MARR May 1997 First Release WAITANGI TRIBUNAL RANGAHAUA WHANUI SERIES Other Rangahaua Whanui reports District reports District 1: Auckland, R Daamen, P Hamer, and B Rigby District 5b: Gisborne, S Daly District 7: The Volcanic Plateau, B Bargh District 8: The Alienation of Maori Land in the Rohe Potae, C Marr District 9: The Whanganui District, S Cross and B Bargh District 11a: Wairarapa, P Goldsmi

7. [2010] NZEmpC 102 Jinkinson v Oceana Gold (NZ) Ltd [pdf, 90 KB]

   ...i.e. a 3 [2000] 2 NZLR 565 (CA) position that is not substantially similar to that previously held by the employee.” This submission largely reflected paragraph [25] of the Court of Appeal’s decision: [25] In a situation of genuine redundancy, where the position truly is surplus to requirements, in the absence of a contractual provision to that effect, it cannot constitute unjustified dismissal not to offer the employee...

8. [2006] NZEmpC AC 57/06 Kumar v Icehouse (NZ) Ltd [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...regarded as sexual harassment, then the repetition of such actions, if found to have occurred after a fair investigation, could have led to a justifiable dismissal for sexual harassment. I use the word “could” as directed to by the Court of Appeal in W & H Newspapers v Oram [2000] 2 ERNZ 448, for the parties agreed that s103A, as inserted by the Employment Relations Amendment Act (No2) 2004, does not apply to the circumstances of this case. [55] It was Mr Parkinson’s po...

9. Foreman v Sanders – Estate of Rachel Ngeungeu Zister (2013) 63 Waikato Maniapoto MB 286 (63 WMN 286) [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...the Will. 7 Joint memorandum of counsel dated 2 July 2013. 63 Waikato Maniapoto MB 292 4. If the Court answers ‘no’ to any of the above questions then subject to pursuing any right of appeal or review the Estate will not oppose the granting of the applicants’ succession order. [24] The preliminary questions have been useful in focusing the minds of counsel, the witnesses and the Court. The evidence filed was largely based...

10. Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee v Parlane [2010] NZLCDT 8 [pdf, 184 KB]

    ...proceedings under the Act and other similarly constituted disciplinary proceedings in New Zealand unless there is a governing statute or other rule requiring a different standard.” [5] This decision largely upheld the dicta in the Court of Appeal. The reasoning in that case was expressly adopted by the High Court in Complaints Committee No 1 of the Auckland District Law Society v APC [2008] 3 NZLR 105. Her Honour Winkelmann J held: “[34] … The Tribunal directed its...