From 3 June 2025 the Employment Court will start publishing its judgments from 24 hours after the delivery date, or the next business day, unless otherwise directed by a judge. Decisions of public interest may be published earlier, as directed by a judge.

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.

Search results

3710 items matching your search terms

  3. [2025] NZEmpC 127 Maritime Union Of New Zealand and Anor v Lyttelton Port Company Ltd [PDF, 174 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 127 Maritime Union Of New Zealand and Anor v Lyttelton Port Company Ltd  (judgment of Judge JC Holden, 26 June 2025) LEAVE TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE CHALLENGE – one day out of time – application followed last minute filing of challenge by other side – that changed circumstances where applicant was otherwise focussed on working through matters – insignificant delay not prejudicial to respondent – respondent says granting leave would disrupt steps it has taken – no prejudice as steps were taken with knowledge of application – not a case with no realistic chance of success – application granted.
  4. [2025] NZEmpC 126 Larsen v Fire and Emergency New Zealand  (judgment of Judge JC Holden, 26 June 2025 [PDF, 210 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 126 Larsen v Fire and Emergency New Zealand  (judgment of Judge JC Holden, 26 June 2025) NON-DE NOVO CHALLENGE – employee claims placement on unpaid leave after refusing to turn out for work was unjustifiable – employee refused because of employer’s failure to perform record of settlement – namely his permanent transfer to a new work location – employer faced difficulties with performance due to conflicting obligations to union and under statute – parties obligated to continue to engage in good faith – employer made many reasonable offers to resolve issues –  employee was non-communicative about reasons for rejection – impasse reached – employee provided with 22 months paid sick leave and six weeks’ notice prior to unpaid leave – decision justified in all the circumstances – challenge dismissed.
  5. [2025] NZEmpC 124  E Tū Inc v Mainland Poultry Ltd [PDF, 294 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 124  E Tū Inc v Mainland Poultry Ltd(Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 26 June 2025) CONTRACTUAL INTERPRETATION – COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT – whether employees on a rotating roster with fixed hours are entitled to shift allowance – meaning of “fixed”, “rotating”, and “alternating” – purpose of shift allowance – relevance of subsequent conduct – shift work is only rotating or alternating if the hours are not consistent – worker hours were consistent – challenge dismissed
  10. [2025] NZEmpC 118 Airways Corporation of NZ Ltd v Small [PDF, 202 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 118 Airways Corporation of NZ Ltd v Small (judgment of Judge JC Holden, 16 June 2025) NON-DE NOVO CHALLENGE – TIME LIMITATION – section 114 Employment Relations Act – grievances raised did not claim new knowledge of past events or one continuous course of conduct – events outside 90-day period may be referred to as background context but cannot form part of the grievances – proceedings properly brought under s 179 – challenge successful.
  13. [2025] NZEmpC 115  Otira Stagecoach Hotel Limited v Wright  [PDF, 162 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 115  Otira Stagecoach Hotel Limited v Wright  (Oral judgment of Judge KG Smith, 9 June 2025) DE NOVO CHALLENGE – Authority found employee was constructively dismissed after being assaulted at work – assault charge made out in District Court but perpetrator discharged without conviction – basis of challenge was a claim that assault did not take place – challenge is an impermissible collateral attack on District Court judgment – discharge and acquittal under s 106 of the Sentencing Act not to evaporate finding of guilt – inappropriate to traverse almost exactly the same evidence on the issue when a finding has already been made on a higher standard – challenge dismissed.
  14. [2025] NZEmpC 114 VXO v Health New Zealand Te Whatu Ora [PDF, 329 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 114 VXO v Health New Zealand Te Whatu Ora (Judgment of Judge JC Holden, 9 June 2025) UNJUSTIFIABLE DISADVANTAGE – investigation into employee’s behaviour followed a fair process – investigator fairly characterised employee’s behaviour – failure to properly consult employee before placing him on special leave only a minor procedural flaw in the circumstances – no unjustifiable disadvantage – UNJUSTIFIABLE DISMISSAL – employee dismissed for medical incapacity rather than by disciplinary action – process prescribed by collective agreement followed – dismissal justified – GOOD FAITH – no breaches – NON-PUBLICATION – ordered for complainant – ordered for employee in respect of publication in news media and on public databases to balance serious health concerns.
  15. [2025] NZEmpC 113 Faitala and Vea v The Pacific Island Business Development Trust [PDF, 213 KB]

    [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.
  19. [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.
  23. [2025] NZEmpC 105 AZK Ltd v JKL [PDF, 219 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 105 AZK Ltd v JKL (judgment of Judge JC Holden 27 May 2025) FREEZING ORDER – application without notice – good arguable case of misuse of company funds – evidence of dishonest activity and advice sought about dissipating assets  – appropriate in circumstances for order to extend over both NZ and Australian assets – application granted – LEAVE FOR OVERSEAS SERVICE – respondent out-of-jurisdiction – service to be effected through diplomatic channels in accordance with Chinese law – application granted – ANCILLARY ORDERS – in the interests of justice for Court and parties to have a full picture of respondent’s assets – application granted