[2025] NZEmpC 113 Faitala and Vea v The Pacific Island Business Development Trust (Judgment of Judge Helen Doyle, 5 June 2025) CHALLENGE TO OBJECTION TO DISCLOSURE -privilege against self-incrimination - whether Labour Inspector powers to obtain answers to questions affects the existence of privilege against self-incrimination - privilege against self-incrimination remains - disclosure issues determined by equity and good conscience jurisdiction - documents partially privileged.
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.
3678 items matching your search terms
-
[2025] NZEmpC 113 Faitala and Vea v The Pacific Island Business Development Trust [PDF, 213 KB] -
[2025] NZEmpC 112 A Labour Inspector v Dao (No6) [PDF, 206 KB] [2025] NZEmpC 112 A Labour Inspector v Dao (Judgment (No 6) of Judge Kathryn Beck, 5 June 2025) FREEZING ORDERS – VARIATION – frozen trust assets do not exceed amount claimed when amounts frozen are assessed individually for each respondent – no changes made to property frozen by orders – clarification of orders relating to new account for ordinary living expenses
-
[2025] NZEmpC 111 Allied Investments Ltd v Jones [PDF, 141 KB] [2025] NZEmpC 111 Allied Investments Limited v Jones (Judgment of Judge JC Holden 4 June 2025) APPLICATION FOR AVL – application not opposed – application granted.
-
[2025] NZEmpC 110 Oliver v Biggs [PDF, 207 KB] [2025] NZEmpC 110 Oliver v Biggs (Costs Judgment of Judge KG Smith, 30 May 2025) COSTS ON DISCONTINUANCE - GUIDELINE SCALE - presumption that plaintiff is liable for costs on discontinuance is partially displaced - costs awarded to plaintiff up to date where further steps became unnecessary.
-
[2025] NZEmpC 109 Wiles v The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Auckland [PDF, 214 KB] [2025] NZEmpC 109 Wiles v The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Auckland (Judgment of Judge JC Holden 29 May 2025) COSTS – reasonable to reject confidential and monetary-based Calderbank offer as plaintiff was motivated by matters of principle – plaintiff overall the winning party – scale costs awarded – category 3C to reflect complex pleadings and comprehensive evidence – vindication of principle and substantial actual costs incurred supported uplift – balanced out by defendant’s success on time-consuming issues – costs to lie where they fall on interlocutory matters to reflect mixed success – COSTS ON COSTS – awarded.
-
[2025] NZEmpC 108 ACCIONA Construction New Zealand Ltd v Rolland [PDF, 137 KB] [2025] NZEmpC 108 ACCIONA Construction New Zealand Ltd v Rolland (Consent Judgment of Judge KG Smith, 29 May 2025) Consent judgment
-
[2025] NZEmpC 107 Menzies v Corrigan [PDF, 153 KB] [2025] NZEmpC 107 Menzies v Corrigan (Costs judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 28 May 2025) COSTS – increased scale costs awarded following discontinuance – behaviour of plaintiff’s representative increased costs
-
[2025] NZEmpC 106 Burgess v Tutton Sienko and Hill Partnership [PDF, 200 KB] [2025] NZEmpC 106 Burgess v Tutton Sienko and Hill Partnership (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge KG Smith, 28 May 2025) SECURITY FOR COSTS – financial circumstances of respondent favoured application – respondent was bankrupt reasonably recently – liable for a substantial Authority costs order – security ordered at 50% of likely scale costs to balance interests of both parties
-
[2025] NZEmpC 104 ACG Education Limited v Jennison [PDF, 145 KB] [2025] NZEmpC 104 ACG Education Limited v Jennison (Consent interlocutory judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 23 May 2025) CONSENT judgment staying execution of Authority’s determination
-
[2025] NZEmpC 103 A Labour Inspector v Dao [PDF, 181 KB] [2025] NZEmpC 103 A Labour Inspector v Dao (Judgment (No 5) of Judge Kathryn Beck, 22 May 2025) FREEZING ORDERS – value of respondents’ beneficial interest in trust property unclear – further submissions sought from parties – freezing orders continue
-
[2025] NZEmpC 102 The Secretary for Education v New Zealand Post Primary Teachers' Association Incorporated Te Wehengarua [PDF, 190 KB] [2025] NZEmpC 102 The Secretary for Education v New Zealand Post Primary Teachers' Association Incorporated Te Wehengarua (Judgment of Judge JC Holden 21 May 2025) PRELIMINARY ISSUE – STANDING TO BRING PROCEEDINGS – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO BRING PROCEEDINGS – Secretary for Education may raise a dispute about a clause of a collective agreement as a party to that agreement in accordance with s 129 ER Act – s 129 not to be read down by s 591(b) Education Training Act – Secretary requires leave to bring proceedings in relation to s 26(3) ER Act as per s 29 – leave granted under s 29(f) – Secretary has legitimate interest in paid union meeting arrangements which may affect education service delivery
-
[2025] NZEmpC 101 Lu v Young [PDF, 147 KB] [2025] NZEmpC 101 Lu v Young (Judgment (No 2) of Judge Kathryn Beck, 20 May 2025) COSTS – scale costs awarded following challenge being dismissed
-
[2025] NZEmpC 100 Harte v Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand [PDF, 148 KB] [2025] NZEmpC 100 Harte v Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 16 May 2025 NON-PUBLICATION – application for non-publication orders over names of eight witnesses – interim orders made as Authority made permanent non-publication orders – no specific adverse consequences identified by applicant – no basis to order permanent non-publication orders at this time
-
[2025] NZEmpC 99 Brown v The Clinician Holdings Limited [PDF, 142 KB] [2025] NZEmpC 99 Brown v The Clinician Holdings Limited (Costs Judgment of Judge M S King, 16 May 2025) COSTS – scale costs awarded to successful plaintiff – costs uplifted to take GST into account
-
[2025] NZEmpC 98 The Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki - Ministry for Children v Hill [PDF, 246 KB] [2025] NZEmpC 98 The Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki - Ministry for Children v Hill (Judgment of Judge M S King, 16 May 2025) NON DE NOVO CHALLENGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – USE OF FORCE – SELF-DEFENCE – employee dismissed after using force against rangatahi in youth justice residence – whether employee acted in self-defence – test for self-defence in Crimes Act 1961 applies for disciplinary purposes as referred to in training materials – employee believed themselves to be at risk of harm – employee used force to defend themselves – not reasonable for employee to use force – reasonable alternatives to force available – context of youth justice residence – same conclusion even if Crimes Act does not apply – Authority erred in its application of test for self-defence – employee not justified in using force in self-defence – Authority did not err in its use of previous decisions – Authority entitled to reach different view of facts and application of law to facts as compared to previou…
-
[2025] NZEmpC 96 Carrington Resort Jade LP v Graham Maheno [PDF, 129 KB] [2025] NZEmpC 96 Carrington Resort Jade LP v Graham Maheno (Costs Judgment of Judge M S King, 15 May 2025) COSTS – INCREASED COSTS – increased scale costs awarded following matter being struck out
-
[2025] NZEmpC 95 Victoria Jeon (AKA Jong Ai Park) as Trustee of the Jesus Aroma Church Trust v Labour Inspector [PDF, 143 KB] [2025] NZEmpC 95 Victoria Jeon (AKA Jong Ai Park) as Trustee of the Jesus Aroma Church Trust v Labour Inspector (Consent Judgment of Judge K G Smith 15 May 2025) CHALLENGE – CONSENT – MINIMUM ENTITLEMENTS – PENALTIES – Labour Inspector and employer settled challenge by consent – identity of employer agreed – employer to pay wage arrears and holiday pay along with interest – employer to repay premiums along with interest – employer to pay penalties to Crown – Authority determination set aside
-
[2025] NZEmpC 94 A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Elements Therapeutic Massage Limited and other(s) [PDF, 192 KB] [2025] NZEmpC 94 A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Elements Therapeutic Massage Limited and other(s) (Judgment of Judge M S King, 15 May 2025) EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE CHALLENGE – Authority issued determination which Labour Inspector considered to be vague – Labour Inspector sought clarification from Authority – Labour Inspector sought to file challenge out of time once Authority issued second determination clarifying the first determination – length of delay lengthy but not unprecedented – much of the delay was explained and justified – some of the delay was not explained or justifiable – prejudice to employees if Labour Inspector is not able to pursue challenge on their behalf – defendant will be prejudiced if challenge permitted to be filed – prejudice to defendant can be mitigated by allowing them to file cross challenge – interpretation issues involving enforcement of minimum entitlement provisions give rise to public interest – no reason…
-
[2025] NZEmpC 93 CG v Calendar Girls NZ Ltd [PDF, 264 KB] [2025] NZEmpC 93 CG v Calendar Girls NZ Ltd (Judgment of Judge Helen Doyle 13 May 2025) APPLICATION FOR INTERIM NON-PUBLICATION - safety and professional reputation concerns if names are publicised - application is not futile - application granted - APPLICATION FOR AUDIO-VISUAL LINK - concerns can be mitigated via strict adherence to Court guidelines - application granted - CHALLENGE TO OBJECTION TO DISCLOSURE - relevance and proportionality - some documents to be disclosed.
-
[2025] NZEmpC 90 Youtap Ltd v Johnston [PDF, 244 KB] [2025] NZEmpC 90 Youtap Ltd v Johnston (Judgment of JudgeJC Holden 9 May 2025)DE NOVO CHALLENGE – IDENTITY OF EMPLOYER – subsidiary company was employer under employment agreement following novation – employee still able to claim an employment relationship with parent company under s 6 Employment Relations Act – true nature of relationship examined – mutual intention that employment was with subsidiary – employee not controlled by [or integral to] parent company over subsidiary company – no employment relationship with parent company – CONTROLLING THIRD PARTY – section 103B – no existing proceedings against employer to join parent company to
-
[2025] NZEmpC 91 LDJ v EZC [PDF, 280 KB] [2025] NZEmpC 91 LDJ v EZC (Interlocutory Judgment (No 2) of Judge Kathryn Beck, 9 May 2025) LITIGATION GUARDIAN – CAPACITY – SUFFICIENT INSTRUCTIONS – counsel raised concerns about whether plaintiff has capacity to give sufficient instructions – medical and other evidence indicates that plaintiff is able to understand issues – medical and other evidence establishes that plaintiff is unable to properly exercise sound judgement and reasoning in relation to issues – plaintiff not able to give sufficient instructions – plaintiff is incapacitated – litigation guardian appointed – no conditions placed on appointment
-
[2025] NZEmpC 92 Happy Belly Production Limited v Dawson [PDF, 187 KB] [2025] NZEmpC 92 Happy Belly Production Limited v Dawson (Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 9 May 2025) CONTRACTUAL INTERPRETATION - WAGE ARREARS - the employment agreement explicitly provides 40 minimum hours of work per week - insufficient evidence that lower hours worked can be attributed to employee default - employee is entitled to wage arrears - wage arrears awarded.
-
[2025] NZEmpC 89 Labour Inspector v Dao (Judgment (No 4) [PDF, 188 KB] [2025] NZEmpC 89 Labour Inspector v Dao (Judgment (No 4) of Judge Beck, 6 May 2025) FREEZING ORDERS – ANCILLARY ORDERS – VARIATION – CONTINUATION – unclear whether assets held by trust are realisable – further ancillary orders made to assess value of accounts of respondents – not necessary to order disclosure of bank statements – freezing orders continued
-
[2025] NZEmpC 88 Hurrell v Menopaws Ltd t/a Number 8 Café [PDF, 160 KB] [2025] NZEmpC 88 Hurrell v Menopaws Ltd t/a Number 8 Café (Interlocutory (No 2) Judgment of Judge KG Smith, 2 May 2025) COSTS – costs following interlocutory application – scale costs awarded.
-
[2025] NZEmpC 87 ELG v KLE (No 7) [PDF, 191 KB] [2025] NZEmpC 87 ELG v KLE (Judgment No7 of KG Smith 2 May 2025) NON-PUBLICATION – non-publication orders not necessary to protect sensitive commercial information – non-publication orders not necessary to protect employment prospects of respondent – non-publication orders necessary to protect confidentiality of settlement agreement signed by parties – non-publication orders made over parties and witnesses – first search order judgment redacted in part