You can search by selecting a jurisdiction, a keyword (for example a name) or browse by year.

Some jurisdictions only publish a selection of decisions. Identifying details may be removed.

Search results

3640 items matching your search terms

  23. [2013] NZEmpC 224 Lyttelton Port Co Ltd v Rail & Maritime Union [PDF, 118 KB]

    Lyttelton Port Co Ltd v Rail & Maritime Union [2013] NZEmpC 224 [Judgment of Judge AA Couch, 3 December 2013] INTERPRETATION OF COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT – Whether second defendants employed “at the Port of Lyttelton” pursuant to coverage clause – Second defendants employed at container handling facility owned by plaintiff 6 km away from Port – Starting point is normal meaning of clause – Preposition “at” used to designate precise location – Second defendant’s interpretation reliant on events subsequent to incorporation of coverage clause in predecessor agreements – Normal meaning of clause does not produce an absurd result or one inconsistent with business common sense – Had plaintiff not acquired cargo handling facility it would have continued to be operated by independent owners – Second defendants not employed “at the Port of Lyttelton” – Not covered by collective agreement – Challenge successful
  25. [2013] NZEmpC 223 Wallace & Cooper Ltd t/a Andar Holdings v Irvine [PDF, 72 KB]

    Wallace & Cooper Ltd t/a Andar Holdings v Irvine [2013] NZEmpC 223 [Costs Judgment of Judge AA Couch, 2 December 2013] COSTS – Whether defendant’s hours and charge out rate reasonably incurred – Time spent on attendances and hourly rates inversely proportional when assessing reasonableness based on skill and experience of practitioner – Defendant advocate’s charge out rates reasonable for junior legal practitioner – Costs incurred by defendant reasonable – Whether there should be uplift in costs on basis of plaintiff’s unreasonable conduct – Defendant’s conduct also unreasonable – No adjustment on two-thirds starting point to be made on this basis – Whether plaintiff’s refusal of Calderbank offer to be taken into account – Incidence of taxation not be taken into account when assessing offer – Offer unreasonably refused – Plaintiff to pay 90 percent of defendants costs for those incurred after offer was made – Plaintiff ordered to pay defendant $52,765 in costs