Search Results

1. [2014] NZEmpC 81 Kellerman v Stoneware 91 Limited t/a Swtiched On Gardener [pdf, 60 KB]

   ...only became aware of the application for leave to challenge the costs determination on 24 March 2014. This is disputed by the applicant. Relevant principles [6] The provisions of s 219 and 221 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act) permit the Court to extend time in a situation such as the present. The criteria were set out as follows in Stephenson v Hato Paora College: 3 There are well-established principles for the exercise of the Court’s discretion to make ord...

2. [2011] NZEmpC 172 [pdf, 118 KB]

   ...the Court reinforced the distinction between substantive rights and the means by which the decision with regard to those rights was reached as follows: … The Authority's "powers" are set out in s 160 and under subs (l)(f) it is permitted to follow whatever "procedure" it considers appropriate. It is decisions made pursuant to that general procedural power that we consider is contemplated by reference to "procedure" in s 179(5). [25] Further, at...

3. [2010] NZEmpC 148 Auckland DHB & 20 Other DHB Named in the attached Schedule v NZ Resident Doctors Assoc [pdf, 56 KB]

   ...behalf. [5] When the Chief Judge convened the full Court, he nominated Judges C M Shaw and A A Couch as members to sit with him. When the matter came on for hearing, Judge Shaw was unavailable and the remaining two members sat as a quorum as permitted by s 210(1) of the Act. [6] We initially heard the parties on 4 and 5 September 2008. At that time, bargaining was still in progress and the issues raised by the proceeding remained alive. When the Court reconvened on 15 September...

4. [2013] NZEmpC 32 Piefection Foods Ltd v Hume [pdf, 133 KB]

   ...employee of the plaintiff, he did not validly raise a personal grievance alleging unjustifiable dismissal. d) The personal grievance remedies awarded by the Authority were excessive. [8] This is a case where I find that it is not appropriate to permit the plaintiff to challenge all aspects of the Authority’s determination in a hearing de novo. The first three aspects of the summary of issues above effectively go to the Authority’s jurisdiction to consider the defendant’s...

5. [2019] NZEnvC 094 Saville v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 3.2 MB]

   ...5.3.3.4(vi) (which requires a non-complying consent for non-residential activities (like an airport) that breach Zone Standard 5.3.5.2(v)); (b) In the case of the Proposed District Plan: (i) Rule 24.4.12 (which provides that informal airports are permitted in the Wakatipu Basin Rural Amenity Zone if applicable standards are complied with); and/or (ii) Standard 24.5.18 (which requires a discretionary consent for helicopters where there are more than 2 flights per day, or when locat...

6. Maori Trustee - Huriwai Family Trust (2011) 13 Takitimu MB 17 (13 TKT 17) [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...to himself. He referred to an alleged variation to the lease as agreed by the owners at a previous general meeting. It was also said that Mr Nuku had engaged in sub-leasing and owners had expressed concern as to whether or not that practice was permitted under the lease. 13 Takitimu MB 18 [4] At the first hearing of the application before me Mr Nuku was unavailable but one of the owners Mr Tihema was present. He expressed a number of concerns, as foreshadowed, and sought t...

7. 2017 NZSSAA 028 (16 June 2017) [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...the belief that he or she was entitled to that sum and would not have to pay or repay that sum to the chief executive; and 4 (b) it would be inequitable in all the circumstances, including the debtor's financial circumstances, to permit recovery. (9B) In subsection (9A), error— (a) means— (i) the provision of incorrect information by an officer of the department: (ii) any erroneous act or omission of an officer of the department that occurs during an inve...

8. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Burcher [2019] NZLCDT 12 [pdf, 307 KB]

   ...Rules relating to solicitor’s nominee companies. Mr Burcher was the trust account partner and the partner primarily responsible for the running of the nominee company. [14] There was a limited exemption to the suspension, in that the Tribunal permitted Mr Burcher to continue to assist Mr Bob Eades with the winding up of the nominee company, which was already underway. 3 New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal....

9. Beef+Lamb New Zealand Limited.pdf [pdf, 115 KB]

   ...recognition for community initiatives, such as catchment groups. (f) The provision of Farm Environment Plans is an important part of the move away from a permissive rule regime that led to the degradation of the Awa. (g) The Decision’s permitted activity regime is effective and efficient in meeting the objectives of PC1 and ultimately giving effect to Te Ture CPT-504273-6-66-V4 Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato / Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River. (h) The relie...

10. Scarborough v Kelly Services NZ Ltd (Costs) [2016] NZHRRT 3 [pdf, 48 KB]

    ...practised as a lawyer, he did hold an Authority to Act from Kelly Services. In a Minute issued on 3 September 2015 the Chairperson at [10] to [14] rejected Ms Scarborough’s objection and made an order under s 108(3) of the Human Rights Act 1993 permitting Mr Bennett to appear for Kelly Services as agent and to represent that company in all aspects of these proceedings. The evidence – Ms Scarborough’s financial position [6] At the close of the hearing on 3 December 2015 Ms Scarbor...