Appellate judgments 2015

Supreme Court

[2015] NZSC 45 SC138/2014 New Zealand Cards Ltd v Ramsay [PDF, 76 KB] JUDGMENT OF THE COURT, 22 April 2015. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Court of appeal

[2015] NZCA 585 CA382/2015 Porirua Whanau Centre Trust v Ngawharau [PDF, 87 KB] JUDGMENT OF THE COURT, 1 December 2015. The application for leave to appeal is declined. 

[2015] NZCA 433 CA233/2015 NZ Tramways & Public Transport Employees Union Inc v Mana Coach Services Ltd JUDGMENT OF THE COURT, 11 September 2015. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. Order for costs made.

[2015] NZCA 432 CA125/2014 Jetstar Airways Ltd v Greenslade [PDF, 276 KB] JUDGMENT OF THE COURT, 11 September 2015.The Employment Court did not err in finding that the requirement for rest periods under the Australian Civil Aviation Order 48 exemption was not a requirement for a rest break for the purposes of s 69ZH(2) of the Employment Relations Act 2000, having regard to the text of s 69ZH(2).The Employment Court did err in finding that the requirement to take a rest break under an Australian regulatory instrument (Civil Aviation Order 48 exemption) that was required to be complied with pursuant to a New Zealand enactment (Civil Aviation Act 1990) was not a requirement “under another enactment” for the purposes of s 69ZH(2), but this error was not material to the first conclusion above.The Employment Court did not err in finding that cl 19 of the respondent’s Individual Employment Agreement fell within s 69ZG of the Employment Relations Act and was not an unlawful contracting out of s 69ZH(2) of the Act that was precluded by s 238. Order for costs made.

[2015] NZCA 401 CA205/2015 Yan v Comissioner of Inland Revenue [PDF, 182 KB] JUDGMENT OF THE COURT, 31 August 2015. The application for leave to appeal to this Court is dismissed. Costs are ordered.

[2015] NZCA 350 CA834/2013 Nathan v C3 Ltd [PDF, 188 KB] JUDGMENT OF THE COURT, 4 August 2015. The appeal is allowed.The question of law is answered as follows: Did the Employment Court err in law in concluding that the reasons relied on by the employer for Mr Nathan’s dismissal do not amount to discrimination on the basis of his status as a union delegate and health and safety representative? Answer: Yes. Mr Nathan’s personal grievance is remitted to the Employment Court for determination in light of this judgment. Order for costs made

[2015] NZCA 255 CA587/2013 JP Morgan Chase Bank NZ v Lewis [PDF, 277 KB] JUDGMENT OF THE COURT, 18 June 2015. The appeal is allowed.The questions of law are answered as follows: Was the decision of the Employment Court wrong in law in holding that: (a) The Employment Court had jurisdiction to hear a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority pursuant to ss 179(1) and 187(1) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 in circumstances where the determination related to a claim about an alleged breach of a settlement agreement whereas the claim before the Employment Court was based on an alleged variation to the employment agreement? Answer: No.

This page was last updated: