Search Results

1. [2024] NZREADT 45 – Parmar v REAA, KB & LB (20 November 2024) [pdf, 121 KB]

   ...mistakes and updating evidence. Also, in that decision the Court of Appeal noted at paragraph [51]: “We [the Court] agree that there may be cases where, in order to secure the objective or a just and effective right of appeal, the discretion to permit further evidence or carefully limited rights of cross-examination may be necessary and appropriate. Rule 20.16(3) itself gives by way of example of a special reason, evidence relating to matters that have arisen after the date of the de...

2. [2018] NZEmpC 153 Rauland NZ Limited v Delvo [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...any time during the continuance of this Agreement was an employee or contractor to the Company. 30.2 In addition to the restraints set out above, you must not, at any time after the termination of this Agreement (a) Advertise, publicise or permit the advertising or publicising of the fact of your employment by the Company in a manner likely to cause damage to the Company; and/or (b) Do any act or thing whatsoever which may injure, impair or reduce or be likely to injure,...

3. [2020] NZEmpC 149 Bay of Plenty District Health Board v CultureSafe NZ Ltd [pdf, 438 KB]

   ...“other party” on notice may in fact result in an intensification of posts and cause further harm. Reference was made to s 173(4) of the Act, which relates to the making of ex parte orders by the Authority. It was submitted the subsection permitted the application to proceed without notice. However, if the application was to be notified, urgent directions and a telephone conference were requested. [35] The Authority issued a notice of direction on 3 December 2018.6 I...

4. Pairama v Tutara - Ururua 2B2 (2020) 217 Taitokerau MB 153 (217 TTK 153) [pdf, 285 KB]

   ...area of land was taken. In the latter case, the persons entitled to enforce the offer back provision are only those who would have been entitled to take under the will or intestacy of the original owner, whereas a wider class of claimants is permitted in relation to the former category. 3 Taueki v Horowhenua Sailing Club - Horowhenua 11 (Lake) Block [2014] Māori Appellate Court MB 60 [2014 APPEAL 60] 4 Williams v Auckland C...

5. Hills - Kaiapoi MR 873 (2005) 110 South Island MB 85 (110 SI 85) [pdf, 283 KB]

   ...Therefore, as stated in Re Lorna Cleave, the Court treats an application that could endanger the continued relationship of Maori with their ancestral land with grave concern, and will allow a status change to happen only in the rare circumstances permitted by statute. The legislation allows this Court to act inconsistently with the kaupapa of the Act only if the Maori freehold status operates as a clear obstacle to the effective use of the land. Accordingly, for me to grant Mr Hills'...

6. [2017] NZEmpC 46 Davidson v Great Barrier Airlines Ltd [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...perceives to be the respective merits of the parties in the challenge. In particular he has referred to the way in which the Authority is alleged to have dealt with the matter and its exclusion of relevant evidence which Ms Davidson should have been permitted to have admitted. He also submitted that in pursuing an application for security for costs in this case, the defendant is trying to ensure that the plaintiff is not given the opportunity or will be unable to pursue her claim....

7. Fehling v South Westland Area School [2012] NZHRRT 15 [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...public, including the Library and the School’s 8 photocopying facilities. He submits that without knowledge of the information on which the trespass notice was issued he has been unable to redress the situation. [36] He says that he must be permitted to know what is alleged against him and by whom the allegations are made so that he can respond and defend himself. No official of the School or member of the School Board having contacted him to discuss the allegations or to asce...

8. LCRO Annual Report 2019 [pdf, 271 KB]

   ...remedy without necessity of a disciplinary outcome may, in appropriate circumstances, enhance the resolution and conciliation objectives of the Act. A Review Officer is required to conduct a review with as little formality and technicality as is permitted by the Act, whilst being properly attentive to the rules of natural justice. The LCRO has observed an increasing tendency particularly on the part of some practitioners, to approach the review process as if it were a process anal...

9. LCRO 32/2020 R NB and A NB v TD (11 March 2020) [pdf, 130 KB]

   ...intention. (e) The Act also requires a Review Officer to conduct a review hearing once an application for review has been received. As well, reviews must be conducted “with as little formality and technicality, and as much expedition, as is permitted by the requirements of the Act … and the rules of natural justice.”6 (f) Decisions of this Office strictly enforcing time limits for filing applications for review, are inconsistent with ss 199 and 200 of the Act. (g) Further...

10. Brown v Progressive Enterprises Ltd (Strike-Out) [2024] NZHRRT 10 [pdf, 207 KB]

    ...element; it shows PEL knew or suspected that he intended to use his rights under the HRA. [42] The pleaded facts, if assumed to be true, do not however show the third element above. Mr Brown has not pleaded or referred to any facts which would permit a finding that the less favourable treatment was because of his intention or suspected intention to use his rights under the HRA. Mr Brown’s claim does not plead there is any link between the threats of trespass and provocation by...