IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND AC 3/08 ARC 35/07. B.W. MURDOCH LIMITED Plaintiff
|
|
- Roland Blake
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND AC 3/08 ARC 35/07 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority B.W. MURDOCH LIMITED Plaintiff MARK ANTHONY HORN, LABOUR INSPECTOR Defendant Hearing: 26 February 2008 (Heard at Auckland) Appearances: Mark Ryan, Counsel for the Plaintiff Casey Hurren, Counsel for the Defendant Judgment: 5 March 2008 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE C M SHAW [1] This case is about whether Mr Adri Honkoop was entitled to receive payment for public holidays which fell during the period of his temporary employment by BW Murdoch Ltd (Murdochs). [2] Mr Horn, a Labour Inspector, made a determination that Murdochs was required to pay Mr Honkoop 4 days' public holiday pay. When Murdochs advised that his conclusions were not accepted and it would not comply, Mr Horn applied to the Employment Relations Authority for orders that payment for the public holidays be made. B.W. MURDOCH LTD V HORN, LABOUR INSPECTOR AK AC 3/08 5 March 2008
2 The Authority s determination [3] The Authority agreed with Mr Horn. It held that Mr Honkoop was not a casual employee and was therefore entitled to payment for public holidays. It applied the test of what the real nature of the employment was and concluded that Mr Honkoop s employment was consistent with that contemplated under s66 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 in that it was agreed that the employment would end on a specified date or on the occurrence of a specified event. [4] The Authority determined that Mr Honkoop was entitled to payment for the public holidays which fell during his employment with Murdochs. Murdochs was ordered to pay the sum of $ gross plus interest to the Labour Inspector for the use of Mr Honkoop. [5] Murdochs elected to challenge that determination and the matter was heard as a de novo hearing. The issues [6] Two main issues emerged from the evidence and the submissions from counsel: [1] Are casual employees entitled to payment for public holidays under the Holidays Act 2003 ( the Holidays Act )? [2] If so, whether the nature of Mr Honkoop s work meant that he was entitled to such payments. The facts [7] In March 2005 Mr Honkoop, who is retired, applied for a position of temporary store person at Murdochs construction site at Te Awamutu. Murdochs was building a dairy factory and had decided to set up a store and employ a storeman for the duration of that project which was to be 3-4 months. [8] Mr Honkoop met with Murdochs project manager, Mr Spurway. At their first meeting they discussed the nature of the work and when Mr Honkoop explained that he needed to have sufficient hours of work and pay to make his travel from Hamilton worthwhile, Mr Spurway agreed that if he was able to do other work for Murdochs, apart from the store work, his hours could be augmented up to around 40
3 hours a week. This was the first store that Murdochs had set up and the first time it had employed a store person. At that early stage they were unsure of the amount of work which would be required on stores work. Mr Honkoop was offered the employment. [9] At their second meeting they discussed the details of the employment agreement, Mr Honkoop negotiated a payment of $20 per hour plus 6% holiday pay. Mr Spurway had originally offered him $18.86 (the hourly rate Murdochs paid to its permanent workers) plus 6% but agreed to the higher rate to recognise the casual nature of his employment. There was no discussion or agreement between Mr Honkoop and Mr Spurway about payment for public holidays. The employment agreement [10] This was headed Employment Agreement (Casual Staff). Under the heading Term it stated: Please note that it is for casual project work. The hours and days to be worked are not fixed and are to be agreed between the Engineering Manager and yourself. [11] The agreement said the remuneration rate applied to every hour worked and reflected the short term project work it related to. [12] The agreement also had a requirement for timesheets to be completed each Monday, a 3 week trial period which Mr Spurway said was to cover the eventuality that the new venture of a store might not be successful and required 1 week s notice of termination. Hours of employment [13] Mr Honkoop commenced work on 14 March 2005 and from then on until the end of the project worked an average of hours a week. The Employment Relations Authority conveniently summarised his hours of work and work patterns in a chart which I adopt with some minor alterations: Week Dates Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Total Hours March March * Mar-1 Apr 8* Apr Apr Apr Apr 10*
4 8 2-6 May May May May May-3 Jun June 10* June June Jun-1 July July July July July Public holidays are noted with an *. The hours on those dates are the hours claimed by Mr Honkoop as payment for public holidays although not worked by him. [14] In each of the first 4 weeks of his employment, Mr Honkoop worked 5 days a week and his hours exceeded 40 hours a week. After that, he was asked by his manager, Mr Skinner, to reduce his hours to bring them in line with the agreed 40 hours and after 1 week of 30 hours usually worked 10 hours a day, 4 days a week, Monday to Thursday although he did work on Fridays when requested on another five occasions. [15] He took one Wednesday off by agreement with his employer to attend a dental appointment. [16] The only evidence of discussions about his availability for work was Mr Skinner s request for him to reduce his hours after the first 4 weeks; his day s leave for his dental appointment; and one conversation with Mr Spurway about whether he was available to work one Friday. There was no evidence that the employer assessed and allocated the amount of work available for him each week or that it tailored Mr Honkoop s working hours accordingly. Mr Spurway did not have any discussions with him about his expectations for his work each week. No evidence was given by Mr Skinner. Mr Honkoop strongly denied that any regular discussions were held with him about that. I accept his account. [17] In the course of his employment, Mr Honkoop was offered and accepted forklift training for which he was paid by Murdochs. Public holidays [18] Of the four public holidays that fell during his period of employment, the first was Good Friday which fell at the end of his second week. The second was the
5 following Easter Monday. Anzac Day fell on Monday, 25 April and Queen s Birthday was on Monday 6 June. During each of these public holidays Murdochs store was closed and neither Mr Honkoop nor the 18 permanent employees were required to work on these days. The permanent employees were paid for these holidays. [19] Mr Spurway said in evidence that the $20 an hour was intended to be inclusive of public holidays providing the employee did not work on the day. However, he did not discuss this with Mr Honkoop at the time they entered into the employment agreement. [20] Mr Honkoop claimed payment for the public holidays on his timesheets which he submitted each week. The payments were not made and, after correspondence with Murdochs, Mr Honkoop realised that they would not be paying so he took the issue up with the Labour Inspector once he left work. Determination of employment [21] There is no suggestion that Mr Honkoop s work was anything other than satisfactory. His employment ended on 27 July In the letter of termination Mr Spurway said that the reason for terminating the contract was that Murdochs had reached near the end of the project works. The period of his employment was, in accordance with agreement, determined by the end of the project. The law [22] The outcome of this case depends on the interpretation and application of the Holidays Act [23] The purpose of the Holidays Act is to promote the balance between work and other aspects of employees lives by providing minimum entitlements to, inter alia, public holidays. It applies to all employers and employees 1 the latter having the same meaning as in s6 of the Employment Relations Act 2000: a person of any age employed by an employer to do any work for hire or reward under a contract of service. 1 Section 7(a)
6 [24] The Holidays Act provides minimum entitlements 2 which cannot be excluded, restricted, or reduced by an employment agreement. 3 [25] Annual holidays and public holidays are described and treated differently. The former are provided for rest and recreation; the latter for the observance of days of national, religious, or cultural significance. The difference and separateness of the two categories of holiday is made clear by s40 of the Holidays Act which provides that when public holidays arise during a period of annual holidays the public holidays must be treated as a public holiday and not as part of the employee s annual holidays. [26] Employees entitlements to public holidays are found in subpart 3 of the Holidays Act. It does not distinguish between types of employees such as casual or permanent: (1) An employee is entitled to public holidays, and payment for those holidays, in accordance with this subpart. (2) Public holidays are in addition to annual holidays that an employee is entitled to under this Act or otherwise. [27] Section 48 mandates how compliance with s46 is achieved. Two different situations arise when a public holiday falls on a day that would otherwise be a working day. [28] First, s46 is honoured if the employee does not work on the day that is a public holiday but would otherwise be a working day and is paid by his employer his relevant daily pay pursuant to s49. [29] Second, s46 is honoured if the employee does work on the day that is a public holiday but would otherwise be a working day; is paid time and a half pursuant to s50 and is provided with an alternative holiday pursuant to s56. [30] Mr Ryan relied in part on s28 to support the plaintiff s case. That section provides that annual holiday pay may be paid with the employee s pay if the employee is employed in accordance with s66 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 on a fixed term agreement to work for less than 12 months or on a basis that is so intermittent or irregular that it is impracticable for the employer to provide the employee with his annual holiday entitlement. 2 Section 6(1) 3 Section 6(3)
7 [31] Section 12 of the Holidays Act applies for the purpose of determining an employee s entitlement to leave and holidays including public holidays. When it is unclear whether a day would have otherwise been a working day for an employee, the Holidays Act requires an examination of the factors listed in s12(3) which are: (a) the employee's employment agreement: (b) the employee's work patterns: (c) any other relevant factors, including (i) whether the employee works for the employer only when work is available: (ii) the employer's rosters or other similar systems: (iii) the reasonable expectations of the employer and the employee that the employee would work on the day concerned. [32] In a recent Court of Appeal decision 4, Chambers J, delivering the decision of the majority, held that the question of whether a day would otherwise be a working day is an intensely practical one. The factors employers and employees are bound to take into account are very open-ended and flexible. [33] A similar approach was taken by the Employment Court in Progressive Meats Limited v Meat and Related Trades Workers Union of Aotearoa Inc 5. Colgan CJ dealt with whether employees at a meat plant in Hastings should have been paid no less than their relevant daily pay for the Queen s Birthday public holiday in 2004 in light of their particular patterns of work. [34] As the collective agreement did not adequately deal with the issue of the minimum weekly remuneration and, in order to determine the employees contractual rights and obligations, the Chief Judge considered what happened in practice at the workplace as a matter of fact by reference to custom and practice. He noted that what would otherwise have been a working day for the relevant employees was essentially a question of fact in each case. 6 4 New Zealand Fire Service Commission v New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union [2007] 2 NZLR 356, WC 1/08, 7 February At para [36]
8 Discussion of Issues Issue 1: Are casual employees entitled to payment for public holidays? [35] As a matter of principle there is no basis for the plaintiff s proposition that, solely by reason of their status, casual employees are not entitled to payment for public holidays. [36] While the labelling of casual employees is common in employment practice, there is no statutory definition of a casual employee in the Employment Relations Act An employee is a person hired to do work under a contract of service regardless of the hours of work or length of the employment. [37] The starting point is that all employees, casual or not, are subject to the same statutes governing their employment including the Holidays Act which does not differentiate between types of employment except in one respect. In a legislative exception to the requirement in s27 that an employer must pay an employee entitlements to annual pay before the holiday is taken or as specified by agreement, s28 provides for two situations where it is appropriate to pay annual holiday pay in regular instalments. While the term casual is not mentioned, it is obvious that reference in s28 to persons who are employed for short terms or who work intermittently or on an irregular basis covers those commonly referred to as casual workers. [38] Whether a person is employed on a short-term agreement under s66 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 or on an intermittent or irregular basis does not change their entitlements to annual holiday pay, but they may agree, as did Mr Honkoop, to have this entitlement paid regularly at 6 percent of his gross earnings. [39] Mr Ryan argued that as s5 of the Holidays Act defines holiday as annual holiday or a public holiday, the statutory intention is that public holiday pay may be paid in regular instalments in the same way as annual pay under s28. He submitted that this could be so because s28 does not expressly exclude application to public holidays. [40] I do not accept that submission. It is clear from the scheme of the Holidays Act that this regular method of payment is limited to payments of annual holiday pay. Section 28 is contained in Part 2 subpart (1) of the Holidays Act which is subtitled Annual Holidays. All references to entitlements to and payments for
9 public holidays is in subpart (3). Payment for public holidays is therefore discreet and unrelated to payments for annual holidays. This is reinforced by s46 which states that public holidays are in addition to annual holidays. [41] The Holidays Act does not differentiate between entitlements to public holidays on the basis of the type of employment. Any employee is prima facie entitled to public holidays and payment for them 7 whether the employee is required to work on those days or not. [42] I do not accept the plaintiff s submission that, because Mr Honkoop was not asked to work on the public holidays in question, he had no entitlement to payment. Section 49 expressly deals with this situation. [43] The plaintiff s stance on this point is also inconsistent with its payment of permanent employees for public holidays when its plant is not open on those days and those employees do not work. The plaintiff recognises its obligations under the Holidays Act to those employees but is mistaken in its belief that those obligations cannot extend to casual employees. [44] I conclude that in principle there is no basis for treating casual and permanent employees differently when assessing their entitlement for payment for public holidays if they do not work on such holidays. The question to be asked for all employees is whether, pursuant to s49, the public holiday would otherwise be a working day for the employee. This is a question of fact. Where the situation is not clear, as is more likely in the case of short term or casual employees, the factors in s12(3) of the Holidays Act are to be taken into account. Issue 2: Did the nature of Mr Honkoop s work entitle him to payment for public holidays? [45] The plaintiff relies on the terms of the employment agreement and the intention of the parties at the time the agreement was entered into as determinative of the nature of his employment 8. Mr Ryan submitted that agreements were made from week to week about what work was to be offered to Mr Honkoop and he could accept or reject those offers. The fact that he accepted virtually all the work offered 7 Section 46 8 TNT v Cunningham [1993] 3 NZLR (CA)
10 does not, in Mr Ryan s submission, change the underlying agreement that was entered into between the parties that the work patterns would be not fixed. [46] The Authority approached the matter by analysing the working relationship to determine the real nature of the relationship. It used by analogy the test in s6 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 to reach the conclusion that elements of Mr Honkoop s employment agreement such as notice and trial periods are not consistent with casual employment. It concluded that those factors and the terms of the job advertisement, as well as the agreements between the parties, meant that Mr Honkoop was not a casual employee. [47] While I reach the same conclusion as the Authority about Mr Honkoop s entitlement to payment for public holidays, I hold that the correct approach is to analyse the relationship according to the factors set out in s12(3) of the Holidays Act which are expressed to be for the purpose of the parties reaching agreement on the matter or for the Labour Inspector to take into account in reaching a determination on entitlements to holiday pay. If these are applied, it is not necessary to categorise the real nature of the relationship for the purpose of establishing rights to payments of public holidays. Section 12(3) Factors [48] These are to be assessed as a matter of fact. The employment agreement [49] The agreement is expressed to be casual but is linked to a short-term project. In light of the terms requiring notice and trial periods, I find it is not unequivocally one or the other but more likely to have been a fixed term contract with an end point at the conclusion of a specified project. [50] The agreement addresses annual leave through the payment of 6 percent but is silent as to public holidays. There was no discussion, let alone oral agreement, between Mr Spurway and Mr Honkoop about payments for public holidays being incorporated into the $20 an hour payments. Even if they had, that is expressly prohibited by s52(3) of the Holidays Act. [51] There was agreement about the hours to be worked each week. This was initially 40 hours more or less but there was no specific arrangement as to which
11 hours would be worked until the after the 4th week when Mr Honkoop was asked to keep his hours closer to 40 hours and he decided to work 4 ten-hour days a week. The employee s work pattern [52] For the first 4 weeks Mr Honkoop worked a 5-day week although these were interrupted by public holidays. After that, generally although not exclusively, he worked 4 days a week between 7 and hours a day. Each Monday, except for public holidays, he worked at least 10 hours. [53] I find that Mr Honkoop worked regular and predictable hours each week. Did he work for his employer only when work was available? [54] The evidence establishes that there was sufficient work to keep Mr Honkoop busy for an average of over 40 hours a week. His work was not governed by rosters but was recorded by him on weekly timesheets after the event and accepted by Murdochs. [55] For the period of his employment his employer made sufficient work available to keep him employed full time which, by arrangement, was done over 4 rather than 5 days. Reasonable expectations of the employee and employer [56] While the plaintiff submitted that his employment agreement gave Mr Honkoop the ability to decline work at any stage, in practice this did not mean that there was no regularity or certainty about when Mr Honkoop would work. [57] Mr Honkoop began work on the first Monday and continued to work regularly from Monday of each week except when Monday was a public holiday. He expected that he would work each week in this way and I find that that was also the expectation of his employer. Neither Mr Honkoop nor Murdochs attempted to make the hours of employment more ad hoc. The employment pattern was set from the beginning and accepted by both. Conclusion [58] On the basis of these factors, I find without doubt that each public holiday which fell on a Monday would otherwise have been a working day for Mr Honkoop. [59] The public holiday for Easter Friday is not as clear cut. The working pattern for the entire 19 weeks shows he did not work consistently every Friday. However,
12 s12(3)(iii) refers to the expectation that the employee would work on the day concerned. This indicates that the statute intends that each public holiday has to be looked at separately in the light of the work patterns around it. [60] During the weeks before and after Easter Mr Honkoop worked on Fridays. He expected to work on Friday and his employer paid him for those days. When his total hours of work were later queried, it was Mr Honkoop who altered the work pattern to 4 days of longer hours to comply with the 40 hours required by his employer. [61] I find that, at the time Easter Friday fell in the early part of his employment, it was a day that would otherwise have been a working day although that changed later in the course of Mr Honkoop s employment because of his election not to work most Fridays. [62] For these reasons, I conclude that Mr Honkoop was entitled to payment for each of the public holidays which fell during the term of his employment. The gross sum of $ plus interest is to be paid to Mr Horn in his capacity of Labour Inspector for the use of Mr Honkoop. Costs [63] As this case is one that has clarified an aspect of the law and will be of use to the Labour Inspectorate in the exercise of its duties under the Holidays Act, counsel agreed that costs should lie where they fall. There will be no order for costs. Judgment signed at 1.00pm on 5 March 2008 C M SHAW
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON [2013] NZEmpC 175 WRC 27/12. Judge Couch Judge Inglis Judge Perkins JUDGMENT OF FULL COURT
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND AND [2013] NZEmpC 175 WRC 27/12 a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority TRANZIT COACHLINES WAIRARAPA LIMITED
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON [2015] NZEmpC 121 EMPC 284/2014. PAMELA SCHOFIELD Second Plaintiff
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND AND [2015] NZEmpC 121 EMPC 284/2014 proceedings removed in full from the Employment Relations Authority PAUL MORGAN First Plaintiff PAMELA
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Mr A Scheme The New Firefighters Pension Scheme (England) (the 2006 Scheme) Respondent Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Authority (the Authority) Complaint summary 1. Mr
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2012] NZEmpC 34 ARC 73/11. Plaintiff. VINCENT SINGH Defendant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2012] NZEmpC 34 ARC 73/11 IN THE MATTER OF an application for compliance order BETWEEN AND NOEL COVENTRY Plaintiff VINCENT SINGH Defendant Hearing: 23 February 2012 (Heard
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2015] NZEmpC 176 EMPC 134/2015. LEAN MEATS OAMARU LIMITED Plaintiff
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND [2015] NZEmpC 176 EMPC 134/2015 a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority LEAN MEATS OAMARU LIMITED Plaintiff
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2013] NZEmpC 34 ARC 15/12. Plaintiff
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2013] NZEmpC 34 ARC 15/12 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to determination of Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN AND CAROL RIRA BAKER Plaintiff ST JOHN CENTRAL REGIONAL
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2012] NZEmpC 203 ARC 98/11. AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for costs. Plaintiff
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2012] NZEmpC 203 ARC 98/11 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for costs BETWEEN
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON [2015] NZEmpC 109 EMPC 289/2014. WELLINGTON CITY TRANSPORT LIMITED TRADING AS "GO WELLINGTON" Plaintiff
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND AND [2015] NZEmpC 109 EMPC 289/2014 a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority WELLINGTON CITY TRANSPORT LIMITED
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA327/2011 [2012] NZCA 481. POSTAL WORKERS UNION OF AOTEAROA INCORPORATED First Appellant
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA327/2011 [2012] NZCA 481 BETWEEN AND AND POSTAL WORKERS UNION OF AOTEAROA INCORPORATED First Appellant LINDA STREET Second Appellant NEW ZEALAND POST LIMITED Respondent
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2010] NZEMPC 144 CRC 25/10. DEREK WAYNE GILBERT Applicant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2010] NZEMPC 144 CRC 25/10 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND application for leave to file challenge out of time DEREK WAYNE GILBERT Applicant TRANSFIELD SERVICES (NEW
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2013] NZEmpC 15 ARC 84/12. VULCAN STEEL LIMITED Plaintiff. KIREAN WONNOCOTT Defendant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2013] NZEmpC 15 ARC 84/12 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN AND VULCAN STEEL LIMITED Plaintiff KIREAN WONNOCOTT
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2011] NZEmpC 56 CRC 17/10. SEALORD GROUP LIMITED Plaintiff
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2011] NZEmpC 56 CRC 17/10 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN AND SEALORD GROUP LIMITED Plaintiff SERVICE
More informationJANET ELSIE LOWE Respondent. J C Holden and M J R Conway for Appellants P Cranney and A McInally for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
- IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA169/2015 [2016] NZCA 369 BETWEEN DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF HEALTH, MINISTRY OF HEALTH First Appellant CHIEF EXECUTIVE, CAPITAL AND COAST DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD Second
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2016] NZEmpC 168 EMPC 338/2016. PREET PVT LIMITED First Respondent
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND AND AND [2016] NZEmpC 168 EMPC 338/2016 an application for freezing orders JEANIE MAY BORSBOOM (LABOUR INSPECTOR), MINISTRY OF BUSINESS,
More informationDecision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 9 January 2009, in the following composition: Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), Member Carlos
More informationJOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA361/2016 [2017] NZCA 69 BETWEEN AND JOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: Court: Counsel: Judgment: 15 February 2017 (with an application
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND AC 45/08 ARC 4/08. Plaintiff
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND AC 45/08 ARC 4/08 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND proceedings removed from the Employment Relations Authority ADRIENNE OLSEN Plaintiff CARTER HOLT HARVEY IT LIMITED Defendant
More informationI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA416/2017 [2018] NZCA 239
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA416/2017 [2018] NZCA 239 BETWEEN AND QBE INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED Appellant ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED Respondent Hearing:
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA112/06 [2007] NZCA 479. Appellant. Hammond, Chambers and Arnold JJ. Judgment: 1 November 2007 at 11.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA112/06 [2007] NZCA 479 BETWEEN AND ROCHIS LIMITED Appellant ZACHERY ANDREW CHAMBERS, JULIAN DAVID CHAMBERS, JOCELYN ZELPHA CHAMBERS AND KIMBERLY FAITH CHAMBERS Respondents
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2015] NZHC KIWIBANK LIMITED Defendant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2015-404-694 [2015] NZHC 1417 BETWEEN AND E-TRANS INTERNATIONAL FINANCE LIMITED Plaintiff KIWIBANK LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 23 April 2015 Appearances:
More informationJoti Jain for Respondent DETERMINATION OF THE AUTHORITY
IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY AUCKLAND [2015] NZERA Auckland 318 5560398 BETWEEN AND GURINDERJIT SINGH Applicant NZ TRADINGS LIMITED TRADING AS MASALA BROWNS BAY Respondent Member of Authority:
More informationInterpretation Statement
Interpretation Statement Tax Residence 20 September 2016 Public Rulings Unit Office of the Chief Tax Counsel INTERPRETATION STATEMENT: IS 16/03 TAX RESIDENCE All legislative references are to the Income
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2017] NZEmpC 58 EMPC 178/2016. AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Plaintiff
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND [2017] NZEmpC 58 EMPC 178/2016 proceedings removed from the Employment Relations Authority AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Plaintiff NEW ZEALAND
More informationNOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA82/2014 [2014] NZCA 304 BETWEEN AND TOESE
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT IMPERIAL GROUP (PTY) LIMITED NCS RESINS (PTY) LIMITED
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: 197/06 In the matter between: IMPERIAL GROUP (PTY) LIMITED APPELLANT and NCS RESINS (PTY) LIMITED RESPONDENT CORAM: SCOTT,
More informationC.J. PARKER CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) Appellant. Winkelmann, Brewer and Toogood JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA637/2015 [2017] NZCA 3 BETWEEN AND C.J. PARKER CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) Appellant WASIM SARWAR KETAN, FARKAH ROHI KETAN AND WASIM KETAN TRUSTEE COMPANY
More informationRent in advance not a deposit: Court of Appeal latest
Rent in advance not a deposit: Court of Appeal latest The Court of Appeal in their latest judgement has confirmed that rent paid in advance is not a deposit. This was the case of Johnson vs Old which was
More informationIn the matter between
,. IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF APPEAL OF SWAZILAND HELD AT MBABANE CASE NO. 04/09 In the matter between MASTER GARMENTS APPELLANT AND SWAZILAND MANUFACTURING & ALLIED WORKERS UNION RESPONDENT CORAM HEARD
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA SITTING IN DURBAN REPORTABLE CASE NO D849/02. Date heard: 2003/04/17. Date delivered: 2003/04/23
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA SITTING IN DURBAN Date delivered: 2003/04/23 REPORTABLE CASE NO D849/02 Date heard: 2003/04/17 In the matter between: STEVEN CHRISTOPHER JARDINE APPLICANT and TONGAAT
More informationIN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH
IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH Reportable Case no: PA2/14 In the matter between: MAWETHU CIVILS (PTY) LTD MAWETHU PLANT (PTY) LTD First Appellant Second Appellant and NATIONAL
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT AT NELSON CRI [2017] NZDC MINISTRY OF HEALTH Prosecutor. BENJIE QIAO Defendant
EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT NELSON CRI-2016-042-001739 [2017] NZDC 5260 MINISTRY OF HEALTH Prosecutor v BENJIE QIAO Defendant Hearing: 14 March 2017 Appearances: J
More informationEDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT QUEENSTOWN CIV [2016] NZDC 2055
EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT QUEENSTOWN CIV-2014-059-000156 [2016] NZDC 2055 BETWEEN AND JAMES VELASCO BUENAVENTURA Plaintiff ROWENA GONZALES BURGESS Defendant Hearing:
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2015] NZEmpC 222 EMPC 342/2015. BETWEEN MARRA CONSTRUCTION (2004) LIMITED Applicant. FREDRICK PRETORIUS Respondent
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND IN THE MATTER OF [2015] NZEmpC 222 EMPC 342/2015 an application for leave to file a challenge out of time BETWEEN MARRA CONSTRUCTION (2004) LIMITED Applicant AND FREDRICK
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY WELLINGTON [2016] NZERA Wellington
IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY WELLINGTON [2016] NZERA Wellington 5 5534497 BETWEEN AND ANN RODGERS Applicant TARANAKI RECRUITMENT LIMITED Respondent Member of Authority: Representatives: Investigation
More informationOntario Ltd. (c.o.b. Castle Auto Collision & Mechanical Service) v. Certas Insurance, [2016] O.J. No. 264
1218897 Ontario Ltd. (c.o.b. Castle Auto Collision & Mechanical Service) v. Certas Insurance, [2016] O.J. No. Ontario Judgments [2016] O.J. No. 2016 ONSC 354 Ontario Superior Court of Justice Divisional
More informationTHE STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED
521/82 N v H EMERGENCY TRUCK AND CAR HIRE JAGATHESAN JOHN CHETTY and THE STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED SMALBERGER, JA :- 521/82 N v H IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) In
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2016] NZEmpC 152 EMPC 323/2015. Plaintiff. AND MARRA CONSTRUCTION (2004) LIMITED Defendant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN [2016] NZEmpC 152 EMPC 323/2015 a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority FREDRICK PRETORIUS Plaintiff AND MARRA CONSTRUCTION
More informationINDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND
INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO/S: PROCEEDING: Mandep Sarkaria v Workers Compensation Regulator [2019] ICQ 001 MANDEP SARKARIA (appellant) v WORKERS COMPENSATION REGULATOR (respondent)
More informationApplying IFRS Uncertainty over income tax treatments
Applying IFRS Uncertainty over income tax treatments November 2017 Contents Contents... 1 1. Introduction... 3 2. Scope of IFRIC 23... 4 2.1 Interest and penalties... 5 2.2 Other taxes and levies... 6
More informationDrafting Enforceable Termination Clauses
Drafting Enforceable Termination Clauses Outline of Presentation The importance of written employment contracts Implementing written employment contracts Modifying written employment contracts for existing
More informationNo. 47,333-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * Versus * * * * *
Judgment rendered August 1, 2012. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P. No. 47,333-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * WEST
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) EA/07000/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 May 2017
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) EA/07000/2016 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 May 2017 On 6 June 2017 Determination given orally
More informationPAYE reporting changes and changes to the payroll subsidy scheme
May 2018 A special report from Policy and Strategy, Inland Revenue PAYE reporting changes and changes to the payroll subsidy scheme The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2017 18, Employment and Investment Income,
More informationBEFORE THE SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL AUTHORITY
[2018] NZSSAA 010 Reference No. SSA 009/17 IN THE MATTER of the Social Security Act 1964 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal by XXXX of XXXX against a decision of a Benefits Review Committee BEFORE THE SOCIAL
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY WELLINGTON [2014] NZERA Wellington
IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY WELLINGTON [2014] NZERA Wellington 72 5431070 BETWEEN AND BRENT HUTCHISON Applicant CANON NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Respondent Member of Authority: Representatives: Investigation
More informationIN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND. IN THE MATTER of an appeal under Section 18 of the Act
JI l THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY AP268/96 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal under Section 18 of the Act BETWEEN RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Appellant
More informationPlaintiff. S Langton and K Phelan, counsel for plaintiff P Skelton QC and M McGoldrick, counsel for defendant JUDGMENT OF JUDGE M E PERKINS
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND REGISTRY UNDER IN THE MATTER OF AND IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND [2014] NZEmpC 68 ARC 58/13 the Holidays Act 2003 and the Employment Relations Act 2000 proceedings removed
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Squires v President of Industrial Court Qld [2002] QSC 272 PARTIES: FILE NO: S3990 of 2002 DIVISION: PHILLIP ALAN SQUIRES (applicant/respondent) v PRESIDENT OF INDUSTRIAL
More informationREDUNDANCY OR UNFAIR DISMISAL?
Introduction Flynn O Driscoll Legal Update REDUNDANCY OR UNFAIR DISMISAL? Notwithstanding the economic turmoil Ireland has and is experiencing where redundancies are inevitable, employers must be able
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Case number : 498/05 Reportable In the matter between : C R H HARTLEY APPELLANT and PYRAMID FREIGHT (PTY) LTD t/a SUN COURIERS RESPONDENT CORAM : MTHIYANE, NUGENT,
More informationIN THE MAORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAKITIMU DISTRICT 2011 Maori Appellate Court MB 55 (2011 APPEAL 55) A
IN THE MAORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAKITIMU DISTRICT 2011 Maori Appellate Court MB 55 (2011 APPEAL 55) A20100012737 UNDER Section 58, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Akura Lands
More informationCitation: Mercier v. Trans-Globe Date: File No: Registry: Vancouver. In the Provincial Court of British Columbia (CIVIL DIVISION)
Citation: Mercier v. Trans-Globe Date: 20020307 File No: 2001-67384 Registry: Vancouver In the Provincial Court of British Columbia (CIVIL DIVISION) BETWEEN: MARY MERCIER CLAIMANT AND: TRANS-GLOBE TRAVEL
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2018] NZEmpC 33 ARC 98/13 ARC 22/14. LSG SKY CHEFS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED First Defendant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND IN THE MATTER OF AND IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND AND AND [2018] NZEmpC 33 ARC 98/13 ARC 22/14 challenges to determinations of the Employment Relations Authority of an application
More informationLAURA JANE GEORGE Applicant. AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent. Ellen France, Randerson and French JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA731/2013 [2014] NZCA 209 BETWEEN AND LAURA JANE GEORGE Applicant AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent Hearing: 12 May 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Ellen France, Randerson
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV CLAVERDON DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED Defendant. P Chambers for Defendant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2009-404-6292 BETWEEN AND HOUSING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Plaintiff CLAVERDON DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 2 February 2010 Counsel: Judgment:
More informationTHE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Respondent. J K Scragg and P H Higbee for Appellant U R Jagose and D L Harris for Respondent
DRAFT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA122/2013 [2013] NZCA 410 BETWEEN AND GARY BRIDGFORD AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ELVA BRIDGFORD OF WHANGAREI Appellant THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG)
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO: J2857/07 In the matter between: KRUSE, HANS ROEDOLF Applicant and GIJIMA AST (PTY) LIMITED Respondent Judgment [1] The applicant, Hans
More informationTC05816 [2017] UKFTT 0339 (TC) Appeal number: TC/2013/07292
[17] UKFTT 0339 (TC) TC0816 Appeal number: TC/13/07292 INCOME TAX penalties for not filing return on time whether penalty under para 4 Sch FA 09 valid after Donaldson: no whether reasonable excuse for
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2005-404-006984 BETWEEN AND STELLAR PROJECTS LIMITED Appellant NICK GJAJA PLUMBING LIIMITED Respondent Hearing: 10 April 2006 Appearances: Mr J C
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Winkelmann, Peters and Collins JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA508/2015 [2016] NZCA 138 BETWEEN AND MRINAL SARDANA Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 8 March 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Winkelmann, Peters and Collins
More informationCase Name: Taggart v. Canada Life Assurance Co.
Page 1 Case Name: Taggart v. Canada Life Assurance Co. Between Fred Taggart, respondent, (plaintiff), and The Canada Life Assurance Company, appellant, (defendant) [2006] O.J. No. 310 50 C.C.P.B. 163 [2006]
More informationIn the application between: Case no: A 166/2012
In the application between: Case no: A 166/2012 DEREK FREEMANTLE PUMA SPORT DISTRIBUTORS (PTY) LTD First Appellant Second Appellant v ADIDAS (SOUTH AFRICA) (PTY) LTD Respondent Court: Griesel, Yekisoet
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2012] NZEmpC 102 ARC 98/11. Plaintiff. AND IN THE MATTER OF proceedings removed BRYCE TINKLER.
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2012] NZEmpC 102 ARC 98/11 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination by the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN AND BRYCE TINKLER Plaintiff FUGRO PMS PTY LTD
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Joseph C. Bongivengo, : Appellant : : v. : No. 877 C.D. 2018 : Argued: February 11, 2019 City of New Castle Pension Plan : Board and The City of New Castle : BEFORE:
More informationCASE NO: 554/90 AND A B BRICKWORKS (PTY) LTD VAN COLLER, AJA :
CASE NO: 554/90 JACOBUS ALENSON APPELLANT AND A B BRICKWORKS (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT VAN COLLER, AJA : CASE NO: 554/90 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) In the matter between: JACOBUS
More informationRespondent. Counsel: Paul Heaslip for the Appellant Sarah Mandeno for the Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY A193/00 BETWEEN R LYON Appellant AND THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Date of hearin g : 14 November 2000 Counsel: Paul Heaslip for the Appellant Sarah
More informationWORKPLACE NEWS COAST TO COAST
Employers Advisor WORKPLACE NEWS COAST TO COAST September 2018 INSIDE: 1. Exception Permitting Termination of Employee Benefits at Age 65 Found Unconstitutional 2. British Columbia s Workplace Laws: More
More informationDO NOT PUBLISH STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
DO NOT PUBLISH STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 08-110 LOCAL NUMBER 144, PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTER S ASSOCIATION, ET AL VERSUS CITY OF CROWLEY ********** APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV NAJDA COURT & ORS Respondent RESERVED JUDGMENT OF MILLER J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 5284-03 BETWEEN AND MACLENNAN REALTY LIMITED Appellant NAJDA COURT & ORS Respondent Hearing: 18 February 2004 Appearances: J Waymouth for Appellant
More informationDecision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 22 July 2010, in the following composition: Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Jon Newman
More informationAppellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent. Miller, Cooper and Winkelmann JJ. A Shaw for Appellant A M Powell and E J Devine for Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA600/2015 [2016] NZCA 420 BETWEEN AND DINH TU DO Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 24 August 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Miller, Cooper and Winkelmann
More informationBefore : LORD JUSTICE GOLDRING LORD JUSTICE AIKENS and LORD JUSTICE McCOMBE Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWCA Civ 585 Case No: C1/2012/1950 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM QUEEN S BENCH (ADMINISTRATIVE COURT) MR JUSTICE HOLMAN [2012] EWHC 1303 (Admin)
More informationLEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN. This complaint relates to a pension plan and alleged poor customer service.
Decision Ref: 2018-0188 Sector: Product / Service: Conduct(s) complained of: Outcome: Investment Personal Pension Plan Delayed or inadequate communication Dissatisfaction with customer service Failure
More informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION Citation: Trigen v. IBEW & Ano. 2002 PESCAD 16 Date: 20020906 Docket: S1-AD-0930 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND: TRIGEN
More informationLEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN
Decision Ref: 2018-0130 Sector: Product / Service: Conduct(s) complained of: Banking Lending Application of interest rate Outcome: Substantially upheld LEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES
More informationTameside MBC Proposed Changes to Terms and Conditions of Employment. Employee Information Booklet December 2015
Tameside MBC Proposed Changes to Terms and Conditions of Employment Employee Information Booklet December 2015 Contents Introduction Why is the Council proposing these changes? Employees in scope of the
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2016] NZEmpC 68 EMPC 248/2015. MATTHEW PHILLIPS Defendant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND [2016] NZEmpC 68 EMPC 248/2015 a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority MODERN TRANSPORT ENGINEERS (2002) LIMITED
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY AUCKLAND [2018] NZERA Auckland
IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY AUCKLAND [2018] NZERA Auckland 213 3014833 BETWEEN A N D LLOYD FOSS Applicant THE HOMEGROWN JUICE COMPANY LIMITED Respondent Member of Authority: Representatives:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI [2013] NZHC Appellant. CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI-2013-409-000006 [2013] NZHC 2388 BETWEEN AND CIRCLE K LIMITED Appellant CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Respondent Hearing: 11 September 2013 Appearances:
More information33/ Summary. 1. Introduction Futures. International. Total Return. Return Index. Index. Trading
NYSE LIFFE U. S. NOTICE No. 33/20100 ISSUE DATE: December 27, 20100 EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2011 NYSE Liffe U.S.- 2011 Exchange Holiday Calendar. Summary This Notice announces the trading days and Exchange
More informationTerms of Business. The following TERMS OF BUSINESS apply to all recruitment conducted by Infront Staffing Pty Limited ( Infront Staffing ).
Terms of Business The following TERMS OF BUSINESS apply to all recruitment conducted by Infront Staffing Pty Limited ( Infront Staffing ). 1. The acceptance of resumes, interviewing of candidates or placement
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL PURSUANT TO SECTION 18(2) OF THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT CHAP. 88:01 BETWEEN
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civ. App. No. 78 of 2009 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL PURSUANT TO SECTION 18(2) OF THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT CHAP. 88:01 BETWEEN EASTERN COMMERCIAL LANDS LTD.
More informationTHE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ORS Respondents
NOTE: ORDER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL AND OF THE HIGH COURT PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH RESPONDENTS AND THE SECOND RESPONDENT'S
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY WELLINGTON [2018] NZERA Wellington
IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY WELLINGTON [2018] NZERA Wellington 88 3019084 BETWEEN NICHOLAS FOUHY Applicant AND ABTEC NEW ZEALAND 1993 LIMITED TRADING AS ABTEC AUDIO LOUNGE Respondent Member of
More informationJUDGMENT. Sun Alliance (Bahamas) Limited and another (Appellants) v Scandi Enterprises Limited (Respondent) (Bahamas)
Easter Term [2017] UKPC 10 Privy Council Appeal No 0092 of 2015 JUDGMENT Sun Alliance (Bahamas) Limited and another (Appellants) v Scandi Enterprises Limited (Respondent) (Bahamas) From the Court of Appeal
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) HU/06395/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) HU/06395/2016 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 23 March 2018 On 29 March 2018 Before DEPUTY UPPER
More informationConsumer Credit Fees Guidelines
GUIDELINE JUNE 2017 Consumer Credit Fees Guidelines Contents The Act and fees provisions 4 Purpose and scope of fees guidelines 4 Contents of guidelines 5 Lender Responsibility Principles and Responsible
More informationREVENUE COMMISSIONERS DETERMINATION
AC Ref: 18TACD2017 BETWEEN NAME REDACTED V REVENUE COMMISSIONERS DETERMINATION Appellant Respondent Introduction 1. This appeal concerns the application of the standard rate of tax in accordance with Taxes
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2015] NZEmpC 43 ARC 79/12. Plaintiff. TSNZ PULP AND PAPER MAINTENANCE LIMITED Defendant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND [2015] NZEmpC 43 ARC 79/12 a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority WEERAPHONG HARRIS Plaintiff TSNZ PULP AND PAPER
More informationBEFORE THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION APPEAL AUTHORITY AT WELLINGTON
BEFORE THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION APPEAL AUTHORITY AT WELLINGTON [2014] NZACA 02 ACA 10/13 IN THE MATTER AND IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND of the Accident Compensation Act 1982 of an appeal pursuant to s.107
More informationRecovery against employers: a practical review of calculations under 151Z of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)
November 2015 Recovery against employers: a practical review of calculations under 151Z of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) Reviewing the basics 1. A worker who suffered an injury at work may be
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: C 376/2012 In the matter between: Deon DU RANDT Applicant and ULTRAMAT SOUTH
More informationSOCIAL, COMMUNITY, HOME CARE AND DISABILITY SERVICES INDUSTRY AWARD 2010 MA FOR WACOSS MEMBERS
SOCIAL, COMMUNITY, HOME CARE AND DISABILITY SERVICES INDUSTRY AWARD 2010 MA000100 FOR WACOSS MEMBERS Rates effective from the first full pay period commencing on or after 1 July 2017 30 November 2017.
More informationWEEKLY BREADTH ANALYSIS January 26, 2007 Bob Nicholas
WEEKLY BREADTH ANALYSIS January 26, 27 Bob Nicholas Marketbreadth@aol.com NYSE WEEKLY BREADTH NUMBERS NYSE NET (A-D) NUMBERS DAILY /26 WEEKLY /22-/26 5-DAY CUM. /22-/26 ADVANCES,95,74 8,384 DECLINES,378,82
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC IN THE MATTER of the Insolvency Act 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV-2016-485-428 [2016] NZHC 3204 IN THE MATTER of the Insolvency Act 2006 AND IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND of the Bankruptcy of Anthony Harry De Vries
More informationASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
RS and SS (Exclusion of appellant from hearing) Pakistan [2008] UKAIT 00012 ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House Date of Hearing: 18 December 2007 Before: Mr C M G
More informationJUDGMENT. claimed against the defendant money due and owing under two loan accounts. Under
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HCA No S-496 of 2005/ CV 2007-01692 BETWEEN REPUBLIC BANK LIMITED CLAIMANT AND SELWYN PETERS DEFENDANT BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON WC 26/06 WRC 16/06. NOEL KITCHEN Defendant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON WC 26/06 WRC 16/06 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority FARMERS TRANSPORT LIMITED Plaintiff NOEL KITCHEN
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Mr J G Turnbull Scheme Armed Forces Pension Scheme 1975 (AFPS 75) Respondent(s) Veterans UK Complaint summary Mr Turnbull has complained that he has not been granted
More informationArbitration CAS 2010/A/2046 Samir Ibrahim Ali Hassan v. National Anti-Doping Committee of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), award of 5 October 2010
Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration Samir Ibrahim Ali Hassan v. National Anti-Doping Committee of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Panel: Mr Gerhard Bubnik (Czech Republic),
More information