Search Results

1. [2011] NZEmpC 44 Matsuoka v LSG Sky Chefs NZ Ltd & SFWU [pdf, 245 KB]

   ...further consideration, possibly in the context of the plaintiff‟s personal grievance. Remedies are also reserved. [95] It is, however, accepted by the defendant that there are no express statutory provisions in subpart 1 of part 6A which would permit a new employer to decline to accept an employee entitled to transfer on grounds such as misrepresentation, fraud, criminal record or the like. Such grounds may provide an employee with justification for declining the employment...

2. LCRO 197/2017 SM v HW (29 March 2019) [pdf, 293 KB]

   ...the former client would be undermined. [96] Rules 8.7 and 8.7.1:17 … reflect the exercise by the Court of its inherent jurisdiction to control its own processes, one of the aspects of which is the power to determine which persons should be permitted to appear before it as advocates. [97] For the prohibition in r 8.7.1 to apply, the circumstances described in paragraphs (a) to (d) of the rule must all be present.18 - confidential information held [98] Paragraph (a) require...

3. [2020] NZREADT 34 - Hammond v Real Estate Agents Authority (11 August 2020) [pdf, 386 KB]

   ...February 2019 (“the Property Check report”), which was emailed to them on 25 February. This stated under the heading “Conclusions”: The exterior walls are clad with direct fixed fibre cement sheeting. This type of construction is now not permitted in today’s construction methods without a drained and ventilated cavity due to the inherent weathertightness risks. There are a number of defects identified to the dwelling which may be allowing moisture ingress at present or...

4. 04.-Evidence-of-Ms-Siobhan-Karaitiana-Muaupoko-Tribal-Authority.PDF [PDF, 656 KB]

   ...of Helen Anderson on behalf of HDC and KCDC accurately summarises the outstanding issues raised by MTA, specifically in paragraph 202. However, I disagree with the planning assessment contained in Table 1: Horowhenua District Plan – Relevant Permitted Activity Conditions, that states that "The proposed activity is not in Page 24 the vicinity of a site of significance to Tangata Whenua and therefore [conditions 16.6.22 and 19.6.13] is not relevant." 35 83. Ra...

5. Muraahi v Phillips Rangitoto Tuhua 55B1B and 55B1A2 Manu Ariki Marae [2013] Māori Appellate Court 528 (2013 APPEAL 528) [pdf, 266 KB]

   ...provisions restricting alienation unless there is compliance with TTWMA. We tend to agree. “Inalienable” strictly prohibits alienation. In contrast, where alienation is restricted by compliance with certain conditions, it is nonetheless permitted subject to meeting those 2013 Maori Appellate Court 550 conditions. Māori Reservations generally contain wāhi tapu or land of special significance to Māori. It makes sound sense that reservation land should be inalienable....

6. [2017] NZEmpC 95 Fraser v McDonalds and Doran v Carrick [pdf, 355 KB]

   ...employee has been disadvantaged by the employee’s employment agreement not being in accordance with section 67C, 67D, 67G, or 67H; or … 2 Although not relevant for present purposes, s 67E permits an employee to refuse to perform work in addition to guaranteed hours if there is no availability clause which provides for payment of reasonable compensation; s 67F provides that an employee may not be treated adversely because...

7. LCRO 240/2016 HM v NL (28 November 2018) [pdf, 255 KB]

   ...NL did not turn her mind to the requirements of rule 6.1 because she did not consider that she was acting for Mr HM. Given my finding that she was indeed acting for Mr HM as well as for Ms Z, it is necessary for me to consider whether rule 6.1 permitted her to do so. Agreeing to act on 26 February 2015 [94] Applying the rule, before Ms NL could act for both Mr HM and Ms Z in this transaction she needed to ask herself whether there was a more than negligible risk that she could no...

8. [2022] NZEmpC 192 E Tū Inc v Rasier Operations BV [pdf, 483 KB]

   ...subordination in the relationship between Uber and each of the drivers. [34] As the contractual documentation spells out, access to the App is non- transferrable. The plaintiff drivers were obliged to provide personal services,43 they were not permitted to share their accounts and their individual driver identifications were to be used to log onto the App on each occasion the App was used.44 [35] Uber decides the cost of each trip and charges that to the customer. The rider pa...

9. White v Potroz - Mohakatino Parininihi No 1c West 3A2 [2016] Māori Appellate Court MB 143 (2016 APPEAL 143) [pdf, 479 KB]

   ...whatsoever of the substantive application and no opportunity to participate in the proceedings. [74] In fact, r 8.1(3) of the 2011 Rules recognises that very difference in the types of rehearing applications that come before the lower Court. It permits the Court to deal with such applications without any appearance if satisfied “that, on the face of the application, there has been a breach of procedure or natural justice so serious that an order of rehearing is clearly warranted.�...

10. Tatere - Mangatainoka No 1BC No 2C Tamaki 2A2A Balance [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 243 (2013 APPEAL 243) [pdf, 262 KB]

    ...satisfaction or where the interests of justice require it: Montego Motors Ltd v Horn.38 In the present appeal the Court appears to have taken no formal steps to avail itself of that discretion. Even if the Court were of its own motion inclined to permit amended pleadings or further evidence, such a process would require notice to the affected parties to enable submissions in response to the Court’s proposed action to be made before the receipt of any additional material could be c...