Search Results

1. [2023] NZEmpC 140 Taniwha v Te Runanga O Toa Rangatira Inc [pdf, 261 KB]

   ...the Rūnanga had advised Mr Taniwha he would need to be vaccinated as a result of the promulgation of the Order. [9] Detailed reference was made to a conversation which took place on 10 November 2021 between Mr Taniwha and the Rūnanga’s human resources manager, Mr Tamaki, for which the Authority had a transcript. In summary, the Authority recorded that Mr Taniwha had been told the Rūnanga considered that relevant staff needed to be vaccinated by 15 November 2021 or have receive...

2. Hollis v ACC [2014] NZACA 2 [pdf, 55 KB]

   ...Income from the grant or renewal, or from the sale or other disposition, of any right relating to— (i) The operation of any mine or quarry; or (ii) The extraction, removal, or other exploitation of any standing timber or of any natural resource; or (iii) The taking in any other manner of profits or produce from land; or (f) Income from any easement affecting land; or (g) Income from payments of any kind made as consideration for— (i) The sale or other dispositio...

3. [2022] NZACC 84 – Olliver v ACC (10 May 2022) [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...(2) Treatment injury does not include the following kinds of personal injury: (a) personal injury that is wholly or substantially caused by a person’s underlying health condition: 9 (b) personal injury that is solely attributable to a resource allocation decision: (c) personal injury that is a result of a person unreasonably withholding or delaying their consent to undergo treatment. (3) The fact that treatment did not achieve a desired result does not, of itself, const...

4. [2023] NZEmpC 164 F & B Remuera Ltd v A Labour Inspector [pdf, 269 KB]

   ...Broadspectrum (NZ) Ltd v Nathan [2017] NZCA 434, [2017] ERNZ 733; applying Keung v GBR Investment Ltd [2010] NZCA 396, [2012] NZAR 17 at [11]; and Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Ltd v Bilgola Enterprises Ltd (1999) 13 PRNZ 48 (HC) at [9]. 15 Bathurst Resources Ltd v L & M Coal Holdings Ltd [2020] NZCA 186, (2020) 25 PRNZ 341 at [19]. [37] In weighing the competing factors, regard will be had to the balance of convenience. Overarching consideration will then be given...

5. [2021] NZEnvC 015 BWO Offshore Singapore PTE LTD v The Environmental Protection Authority [pdf, 3.8 MB]

   ...MAKAURAU IN THE MATTER OF AND BETWEEN AND AND Court: Judge J A Smith Decision No. [2021] NZEnvC 015 an appeal under s129 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 (EEZ) of Part 11 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) BW OFFSHORE SINGAPORE PTE LTD VIJA YENDRAN MAHINDRAN (ENV-2020-AKL-000025) Appellants THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY Respondent Hearing: Last case event: In chambers at Aucldand 10 De...

6. [2010] NZEmpC 156 Raukura Hauora o Tainui Trust v Nathan [pdf, 53 KB]

   ...disciplinary meeting was arranged with Ms Nathan and her support person, Ms Louise Darroch of the Mangere Community Centre, for 21 February 2008. The plaintiff was represented by Ms Blomfield, Tutata Matatahi and the plaintiff’s Human Resources Manager, Mr Bill Martin. When asked at that meeting who actually did the banking, Ms Nathan said that the banking timetable had been given to the receptionists but she never did the banking and she was not clear who did. Ms Blo...

7. Sherard v Devereux - Otakanini Church Site (2021) 238 Taitokerau MB 185 (238 TTK 185) [pdf, 275 KB]

   ...Ltd [1999] 1 NZLR 664; and Selkirk v McIntyre [2013] 3 NZLR 265. 23 Moeahu v Winitana – Waiwhetu Pā No 4 (2014) 319 Aotea MB 166 (319 AOT 166) at [26] (footnotes omitted). 238 Taitokerau MB 196 critical of trustees who had used trust resources incorrectly even though they had relied on advice. [44] Mr Bennett identified that Carole Povey, Tracey Hill and Arianna Hart were effectively running the trust over the relevant period. Carol Povey and Tracey Hill received s...

8. [2007] NZEmpC CRC19/07 Abernethy v Dynea NZ Ltd [pdf, 79 KB]

   ...pragmatic reasons for this decision. [64] As already noted as an indicator of statutory interpretation, the parties are entitled to expect a prompt resolution of their case18. The raising of a preliminary issue inevitably takes up time and resources and if a challenge to such a preliminary issue brings the parties to the Court, it is sensible for the matter to remain here for resolution rather than having to return to the Authority for the matter to be reopened. [65] The deci...

9. [2012] NZEmpC 143 George v Auckland Council [pdf, 131 KB]

   ...of the statement of claim please state: …(ii) the date when each of the nine persons who had been incorrectly treated as contractors was employed by the plaintiff; (iii) the person or persons amongst the plaintiff’s managers and human resources personnel who employed as contractors each of the nine persons who had allegedly been incorrectly treated as contractors; … (v) how the alleged potential tax liability of $380,000 was calculated; (vi) the information relied...

10. [2024] NZEmpC 4 Bread of Life Christian Church in Auckland v Chen [pdf, 221 KB]

    ...concern in relation to financial viability. 16 See SP Blinds Ltd v Hogan [2022] NZEmpC 104, [2022] ERNZ 416 at [11]; as referred to in Jeon, above n 15, at [11]. 17 Grove v Archibald [1997] 2 ERNZ 125 (EmpC) at 128–129; and Bathurst Resources Ltd v L&M Coal Holdings Ltd [2020] NZCA 186 at [19]–[20]. Is the challenge being pursued in good faith? [45] I accept, based on the information currently before the Court that the Trust’s challenge is being pu...