Search Results

1. [2016] NZEmpC 31 A Labour Inspector v Taste of Egypt Limited [pdf, 473 KB]

   ...the company and, therefore, its failure to pay the sums orders by the Authority against the company. In the cases of Saeed Awad and Dianne McFarlane, who are a couple, the applicant emphasises that the terms of the order sought and made will permit them to have access to funds for ordinary living expenses; for the payment of legal expenses relating to the freezing order; and for the disposal of assets or the making of payments in the ordinary course of their business including th...

2. Dotcom v Crown Law Office (Damages) [2022] NZHRRT 7 [pdf, 195 KB]

   ...the requests were vexatious and included information which was trivial. The Solicitor-General also advised that insufficient reasons for urgency had been provided. [5] The primary issues before the Tribunal were first, whether the transfers were permitted by PA 1993, s 39(b)(ii) and second, whether in terms of PA 1993, s 66(2)(b) there was no proper basis for the decline decision. [6] As summarised by the Court of Appeal at [5], the Tribunal concluded: [6.1] The Attorney-General was...

3. [2023] NZSSAA 009 (10 July 2023) [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...However, reg 139(3) provides that JSS is not a qualifying benefit for the purpose of the 4-week rule. [17] There is also discretion to pay a benefit that is not a qualifying benefit where, relevant to this appeal, an absence is for one of the permitted reasons in reg 146:9 (a) to attend a job interview or follow up on a job prospect: (b) to attend a significant event relating to a family member: (c) to attend a court case as a party or a witness: (d) in the case of a beneficiar...

4. [2023] NZREADT 12 - KD & DX v Donaldson (31 May 2023) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...records its expectation that the Authority be neutral in all cases, not just “generally”. In no case would it be proper for the Authority to become an advocate for a complainant. It is not accepted that the Authority’s consumer protection role permits it to adopt any more active role in compensation proceedings. Its role is not enlarged where complainants are unrepresented or disadvantaged. [48] The Authority apparently sees itself as having an obligation to assist compla...

5. [2008] NZEmpC AC 37/08 Orakei Group (2007) Ltd (formerly Axiom Rolle PRP Valuations Services Ltd) v Kapadia & Ors [pdf, 44 KB]

   ...involved in the proceeding on 11 October 2004 when Orakei Group attempted but failed to execute an Anton Piller order at Equity’s premises. Orakei Group says that Equity has not explained this lengthy delay. It says it would be unreasonable to permit it to be subjected to costs more than 2 years after the failed attempt at execution of the Anton Piller order. [25] Orakei Group says that Equity’s presence as a party will not more effectually dispose of any matter before the C...

6. Harvey v Accident Compensation Corporation [2015] NZACA 7 [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...care needs was relevant to my assessment. [47] I do not accept Mr Darke’s submission that the answer to the assessment I must make depends on the care his parents actually provided, rather than on what was objectively required. Section 80(3) permits the Corporation to pay where an injured person “must have” constant personal attention, paying such amounts as the Corporation thinks fit for the “necessary” care of the person. The objective nature of the criteria has been...

7. BORA Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment [pdf, 402 KB]

   ...of s 21.[3] Freedom of expression 6. The Bill necessarily limits freedom of expression both by requiring non-disclosure of certain information and, more broadly but indirectly, in deterring or “chilling” communication between individuals by permitting that communication to be monitored. 7. The question is whether that limitation is demonstrably justifiable in terms of 5 of the Bill of Rights Act. In that respect, the purpose of the restrictions, however, is to support New Zealand...

8. Piper v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 408) & Ors [2017] NZREADT 32 [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...such a condition being inserted. They said that the stump and its roots were essential to hold up the bank the stump was on, half of the stump was on the neighbour’s property (so their consent would be required), and that the Council would not permit it to be removed. [34] On 13 August (three days before the auction), Mr Ebert sent an email to the second respondents and Mr Piper, reporting on progress with marketing the property. He said, among other things: Stump, we should...

9. [2015] NZEmpC 107 Zespri International Ltd v Yu interlocutory [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...sensitive. [24] I consider, however, with respect, that the terms of the compliance order made by the Authority, rather than the fact of making a compliance order, contain the error into which it fell. [25] First, the terms of its order permitted the whole of the contents of the laptop to be ‘reviewed’ (that is, as I understand it, inspected) by the representatives of both parties. In these circumstances, Zespri is understandably and rightly concerned that its privile...

10. Cunliffe & Cunliffe v Helensville Primary School Board of Trustees [2024] NZHRRT 4 [pdf, 219 KB]

    ...then s 66(2)(b) will be satisfied and there will be an interference with Mr and Ms Cunliffe’s privacy. [26] In determining whether there was a “proper basis” in s 66(2)(b) reference must be made to s 30 PA 1993 which states: 30 Refusal not permitted for any other reason Subject to sections 7, 31, and 32, no reasons other than 1 or more of the reasons set out in sections 27 to 29 justifies a refusal to disclose any information requested pursuant to principle 6. [27] The wordi...