Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

[2023] NZEmpC 122 Carrington Resort Jade LP v Roy (Costs Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 11 August 2023) COSTS – GUIDELINE SCALE – costs awarded.

[2023] NZEmpC 120 Carrington Resort Jade LP v Maheno (Costs Judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 9 August 2023) COSTS – sought costs were less than guideline scale costs – costs awarded.

[2023] NZEmpC 118 Halse v Hamilton City Council (Interlocutory Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 7 August 2023) APPLICATION FOR RECUSAL - previous judgments against applicant were not plainly erroneous - previous adverse statements were not unfair or excessive - no grounds for recusal - application declined.

[2023] NZEmpC 116 TPT Forests Ltd v Penfold (Consent Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 2 August 2023) CONSENT.

[2023] NZEmpC 114 Jeon v A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Interlocutory Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 27 July 2023) APPLICATION FOR STAY – insufficient evidence that stay is required to protect applicant’s challenge rights – balance of convenience weighs against granting stay – application declined.

[2023] NZEmpC 112 MW v Spiga Ltd (Interlocutory Judgment (No 3) of Judge B A Corkill, 25 July 2023) APPLICATION FOR INTERVENER STATUS – applicants would assist the Court with their respective perspectives – application granted.

[2023] NZEmpC 110 Hamilton Hindin Greene Ltd v Smalley (Costs Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 21 July 2023) COSTS ON DISCONTINUANCE – GUIDELINE SCALE – costs awarded with adjustments.

[2023] NZEmpC 108 MGK Homes Ltd v Yoon (Interlocutory Judgment (No 2) of Judge Kathryn Beck, 19 July 2023) APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS – whether respondent has equity in property assets – “as is” property value used instead of rateable value – actual loan amount used instead of priority sums – respondent has sufficient assets to meet potential costs award – application declined.

[2023] NZEmpC 107 Pilgrim v Attorney-General (Interlocutory Judgment (No 34) of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 13 July 2023) APPLICATION FOR ACCESS TO IN-COURT VIDEO FOOTAGE - footage to be used in documentary - proceedings are of significant public interest - application granted with conditions.

[2023] NZEmpC 105 Pilgrim & Ors v Attorney-General & Ors (Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 13 July 2023) APPLICATION FOR DECLARATION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS - workers undertook cooking, cleaning, laundry and food preparation duties in religious community - work was rewarded by necessities of life and being permitted to remain in the community - workers were not volunteers - work being "domestic" in nature not a relevant factor - work was in the nature of employment according to objective indicators - employment status is not inconsistent with community's religious freedom - workers were employees - application granted.  

[2023] NZEmpC 103 Carrington Resort Jade LP v Knight (Costs Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 5 July 2023) COSTS – GUIDELINE SCALE – costs awarded.

[2023] NZEmpC 101 GF v Comptroller of Customs (Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 30 June 2023) UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – UNJUSTIFIED DISADAVANTAGE – TIKANGA – PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYER “GOOD EMPLOYER” OBLIGATIONS  – dismissal in relation to COVID-19 vaccine – unvaccinated worker – tikanga a relevant consideration – employer incorporated tikanga/tikanga values into relationship – at very least should have been considered – Public Service Act 2020 good employer standard – heightened obligations on public service employers – deficient communication and engagement with employees choosing not to be vaccinated – no individualised health and safety assessment – predetermined outcome – process failed to meet the baseline fair and reasonable employer standard ­– breach of good faith – UPDATE TO COMPENSATION BANDS  –  $25,000 compensation – 3 months’ lost wages awarded – formal recommendations made.

[2023] NZEmpC 99 Speed v Board of Trustees of Wellington Girls College (Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 23 June 2023) APPLICATIONS FOR NON-PUBLICATION AND TAKE-DOWN ORDERS - Court has jurisdiction to make retrospective non-publication or anonymisation orders - insufficient basis for non-publication or anonymisation orders to be made - Court does not have jurisdiction in the circumstances to make take-down orders - applications declined.