19 Nov 2019
Despite a lengthy unexplained delay and unsatisfactory conduct by the applicants the respondent was not shown to suffer prejudice sufficient to justify refusal; accordingly the Court exercised its discretion to grant an extension of time subject to strict conditions requiring filing, service and timetable compliance.
22 Nov 2018
An extension of time was granted and leave to appeal was granted because the stated questions are questions of law of general importance appropriate for determination by the Court of Appeal.
15 Dec 2017
The interim application was dismissed because there was significant doubt the Court could grant injunctive relief against the Tokelauan Crown, doubt that reinstatement was an available ultimate remedy under Tokelauan law (making damages likely the adequate remedy), and the balance of convenience favoured refusing interim reinstatement given recovery difficulties, public interest in institutional confidence, and the availability of an early substantive hearing.
11 Oct 2017
A reasonably competent lawyer acting in accordance with the LCA and Conduct and Client Care Rules must provide clients with a realistic cost/benefit assessment of litigation (including risks of not obtaining reinstatement and the likelihood that fees may exceed recovery); failure to provide such advice can constitute unsatisfactory conduct; the Standards Committee's substantive unsatisfactory conduct finding was upheld except that the Committee failed to explain or justify the specific reduction of ERA fees to $10,000 and that particular order was set aside and remitted for reconsideration.
13 Sept 2017
The application for a stay was declined because it was an abuse of process: Broadspectrum sought effectively to revisit reinstatement issues that should have been and could have been raised earlier, the appeal would not be rendered nugatory by refusal of stay, the employer's late-raised safety/competency concerns were unconvincing and on-the-job training could address legitimate issues; balance of convenience favoured the respondent and the appeal lacked strong prospects of success.
23 May 2017
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the questions advanced lacked general or public importance and were fact‑specific; critically, the Authority erred by imposing remedies without determining liability and without hearing the employee's evidence, contrary to s 157(1), and the Employment Court properly corrected that error by ordering reinstatement and associated remedies.
20 Feb 2017
Court was satisfied on affidavit evidence and WHRS report that the property is damaged and requires full re-clad, the proposed reinstatement scheme and levy calculation methodology are appropriate, and therefore the scheme is settled and approved under s 74, permitting departures only as necessary.
11 Aug 2016
The application for extension of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide an adequate explanation for the lengthy delay and the proposed grounds were either factual, moot, or devoid of merit and therefore did not disclose questions of law warranting appellate consideration.
28 Apr 2016
The application for discovery of insurer reserve records is dismissed because the plaintiff's pleaded case seeks declarations for reinstatement (not immediate quantum), reserve entries are inexact internal estimates not relevant to the pleaded issues, and Prattley is factually distinguishable; reserves are not shown to be relevant to the specific defences of prejudice from late claim notification.
14 Apr 2016
The application for leave was dismissed because the asserted errors were applications of settled law and matters of discretion; the Employment Court judge was entitled to conclude the Calderbank offers would not have provided the vindication the respondent sought (notably because settlement terms were confidential and provided no public acknowledgement), so no question of law of sufficient general or public importance arose to warrant leave.