ERNZEquine Research New Zealand (Massey University)
References in periodicals archive ?
The judgment in Moore v Department of Labour, HC Christchurch, 5 July 2001, A 50/01, for example, emphasizes a "hierarchy of responsibility", while the employee's level of care has been interpreted as relevant only as a mitigating factor in setting the appropriate fine imposed on a careless employer; Department of Labour v de Spa [1994] 1 ERNZ 339.
Nevertheless, satisfying the codes may be neither necessary nor sufficient for taking practicable steps; see Central Cranes Ltd v Department of Labour [1997] ERNZ 520, while the failure to mention a particular hazard in a code may, but need not, excuse an employer from a duty to identify it; see Burrell Demolition v Department of Labour [2002] DCR 795.
15) For example, the decision in Department of Labour v Central Cranes Ltd [1996] 2 ERNZ 199 (HC) is a case in point.