The reconciliation

Question 1

what are ate two cases that came within the reconciliation.

Answer 1

-Air Line Pilots case: New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association Ltd v Air New Zealand Ltd
-Wood v Capita

Question 1

when did the reconciliation occur

Answer 1

late 2010s

Question 2

Air Line Pilots case: New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association Ltd v Air New Zealand Ltd facts

Answer 2

Air NZ pilots can join either NZALPA or FANZP, both of which negotiate Collective Employment Agreements (CEAs) to secure favorable employment terms. As competing unions, they strive to attract members by offering better conditions. However, there were conflicting interpretations of the agreements, with one side favoring the plain meaning of the terms while the other advocated for a more technical interpretation.

Question 3

Air Line Pilots case: New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association Ltd v Air New Zealand Ltd issue

Answer 3

the dispute was based on Clause 24.2 use of “any agreement” - does this mean the whole agreement or parts of the agreement?

Question 4

Air Line Pilots case: New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association Ltd v Air New Zealand Ltd held

Answer 4

it meant the whole agreement, Plain meaning - a reasonable person would think “agreement” refers to the whole agreement (cannot cherry pick), should be taken by what both parties intend collectively,

Question 5

Wood v Capitia facts

Answer 5

Capita (the buyer) entered into an agreement with Wood (the seller) to purchase an insurance company, which included an indemnity clause requiring the seller to compensate the buyer for any claims or complaints. After the sale, the seller learned that the company had misled customers and voluntarily developed a compensation scheme, even though there had been no complaints prompting this action.

Question 6

Wood v Capitia issue

Answer 6

Does indemnity clause include compensation not derived from claims and complaints?

Question 7

Wood v Capitia held

Answer 7

indemnity clause DOENST include compensation not derived from claims and complaints.

The weight assigned to context and commercial common sense in contract interpretation depends on the quality of the drafting. In sophisticated and complex agreements drafted by professionals, textual analysis is prioritized, while informal or brief agreements lacking professional input require more emphasis on context. Both plain meaning and wider context can be considered, and it does not matter which is applied first. Additionally, Arnold v Britton did not alter the existing principles of contract interpretation.

Question 8

what did the Sc pick up as the error in the airline pilots case

Answer 8

• they way in which the employment court looked at PN

Question 9

what was interesting about the way that the sc looked at the way the employment court used PN

Answer 9

• they didnt say that the error was because of the sole use of PN, which is what you would expect if there was an exclusionary rule for PN
• DESPITE THIS, there was not real development on the law of admissibility