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

3871 items matching your search terms

  2. [2025] NZEmpC 219 SL v ZSM Limited [PDF, 181 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 219 SL v ZSM Limited (Interlocutory Judgment (No 2) of Chief Judge Christina Inglis 10 October 2025) APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL - application falls within inherent powers of the Court - good cause exists for counsel to withdraw - application granted - APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT - relative proximity to hearing means that it must be adjourned - lengthy adjournment would present difficulties for plaintiff - short adjournment granted
  4. [2025] NZEmpC 217 Fuimaono v Ritchies Murphy Transport Solutions Limited [PDF, 186 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 217 Fuimaono v Ritchies Murphy Transport Solutions Limited (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge King, 7 October 2025) APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS - merits of challenge are weak - plaintiff may not be able to pay costs if challenge is unsuccessful but may not be able to proceed with challenge if security for costs is granted - plaintiff impecuniosity is partly caused by defendant - balance of convenience favours granting security for costs - application granted.
  5. [2025] NZEmpC 216 Pulse 2012 Limited t/a Browne Street Cafe v Stewart [PDF, 195 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 216 Pulse 2012 Limited t/a Browne Street Cafe v Stewart (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge Helen Doyle, 7 October 2025) APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS – evidence exists that company may be unable to meet award of costs against it – challenge brought in good faith – security for costs awarded at a level that will not stifle the challenge – APPLICATION FOR STAY – concerns about inability to pay can be addressed by money being paid into Court – balance of convenience favours granting order for money to be paid into court, in instalments.
  6. [2025] NZEmpC 215 Scott v Damar Industries Limited [PDF, 248 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 215 Scott v Damar Industries Limited (Reasons for Judgment of Judge M S King, 29 September 2025)  APPLICATION FOR INTERIM REINSTATEMENT – employee dismissed for serious misconduct – employee alleged to have breached anti-bullying policy and code of conduct – arguable case of unjustified dismissal – weakly arguable case for reinstatement established – co-worker significantly impacted by conduct – reinstatement not practicable or reasonable – balance of convenience and interests of justice point against reinstatement – interim reinstatement not ordered. APPLICATION FOR INTERIM NON-PUBLICATION –complainant’s wellbeing may be unduly compromised by identification - interim non-publication orders granted.
  7. [2025] NZEmpC 214 Wilson Parking New Zealand Limited v Turner and other(s) (Interlocutory Judgment (No 2) of Judge Helen Doyle) [PDF, 284 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 214 Wilson Parking New Zealand Limited v Turner and other(s) (Interlocutory Judgment (No 2) of Judge Helen Doyle) APPLICATION FOR INTERIM INJUNCTIONS – serious question to be tried for breach of contractual, implied and fiduciary obligations and misuse of confidential information and arguable case that conduct of first defendant attributed to second defendant. – balance of convenience and overall justice do not favour granting second interim injunction as it is outside of the restraint period and would impact on contractual arrangements of third parties.  The first interim injunction sought would no longer serve a purpose as confidential information arguably stale. APPLICATION FOR FREEZING ORDERS – good arguable case, assets exist, dishonest conduct plus concerns support risk of asset dissipation – not persuaded first freezing order is in the nature of a freezing order nevertheless balance of convenience and overall justice considered in event that it incorrect.  Balance …
  9. [2025] NZEmpC 212 Kamo Landscape & Quarry Supplies Limited v Caswell [PDF, 257 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 212 Kamo Landscape & Quarry Supplies Limited v Caswell (Interlocutory judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 18 September 2025) APPLICATION FOR STAY – SECURITY FOR COSTS – plaintiff impecunious - evidence of defendant’s inability to pay if challenge successful – defendant entitled to fruits of success – defendant would be adversely impacted by a stay – balance of convenience and interests of justice favours a compromise – application for stay declined over minimum entitlements –security for costs successful in part - application for stay granted on the condition that compensation ordered by Authority is paid into court - sums to be paid into court will preserve position of the parties - plaintiff’s challenge to determination stayed until sums are paid. APPLICATION TO DISMISS PROCEEDINGS – procedural errors insufficient to dismiss proceedings – application for dismissal declined(Interlocutory judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 18 September 2025) APPLICATION FOR STAY – SECURITY FOR C…
  10. [2025] NZEmpC 211 Da Hai Investment Ltd v Lebreton [PDF, 188 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 211 Da Hai Investment Ltd v Lebreton (Interlocutory Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 18 September 2025)  APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION – plaintiff may be injuriously impacted if stay is not granted – defendant submits plaintiff’s concerns can be met by payment into Court - balance of convenience favours stay on conditions - stay granted on condition that the Authority’s awards are paid into Court.
  11. [2025] NZEmpC 210 Harte v Midwifery Employee Representation and Advisory Service Inc [PDF, 175 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 210 Harte v Midwifery Employee Representation and Advisory Service Inc (Interlocutory Judgment (No 4) of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 18 September 2025) OBJECTION TO ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS - document has already been disclosed and was admitted in the Employment Relations Authority - document may be subject to privilege against self-incrimination in the context of penalty claims - document is admissible in these proceedings, having been waived
  12. [2025] NZEmpC 209 DBM Medical Ltd v Gaarkeuken [PDF, 237 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 209 DBM Medical Ltd v Gaarkeuken (Judgment of Judge JC Holden, 17 September 2025) DE NOVO CHALLENGE – constructive dismissal made out in Authority – employee also pleaded unjustified disadvantages – employee had poor sales performance – employer took steps to improve performance – no evidence of manipulating resignation – employee was senior but supported – concerns were raised in a fair manner – request and timeline for a territory sales plan was fair – draft performance improvement plan was signed but clearly a proposal to be discussed – a resignation in anticipation of future events will not be a constructive dismissal – resignation was effective immediately – employer cannot decline to accept a resignation – actions after resignation not actionable – challenge successful
  13. [2025] NZEmpC 208 Soapi and Others v Pick Hawkes Bay Inc [PDF, 412 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 208 Soapi and Others v Pick Hawkes Bay Inc (Judgment of the full Court, 15 September 2025)  MINIMUM WAGE – RECOGNISED SEASONAL EMPLOYER (RSE) SCHEME – lawfulness of wage deductions under Wages Protection Act 1983 and Minimum Wage Act 1983 – deductions were in breach of Wages Protection Act where they exceed the amounts expressly agreed to – deductions were in breach of Minimum Wage Act where they brought employee pay below minimum wage rate – deduction for accommodation can exceed 5% if cash value of lodging is fixed by agreement – cash value of accommodation was not fixed by agreement – deduction for accommodation fixed at 5% - COUNTERCLAIM – claim of restitution for costs of flights, insurance and accommodation paid on behalf of employees – unjust enrichment – counterclaim is not barred by Employment Relations Act 2000 – insufficient evidence of cost to employer – counterclaim declined – judgment to be forwarded to Immigration New Zealand.
  14. [2025] NZEmpC 207 Lyttelton Port Company Limited v Maritime Union of New [PDF, 336 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 207 Lyttelton Port Company Limited v Maritime Union of New (Judgment of Judge Smith, 15 September 2025) NON-DE NOVO CHALLENGE – INTERPETATION OF COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT – HEALTH AND SAFETY - whether health monitoring policy inconsistent with the collective agreement – collective agreement provided consent for testing for discrete health matters – terms of collective agreement were exhaustive – collective agreement could not objectively extend beyond discrete matters - drug and alcohol testing not analogous to proposed policy – policy aimed at monitoring wellbeing and fitness to work generally – health policy contrary to collective agreement and not a lawful or reasonable instruction – challenge unsuccessful. 
  16. [2025] NZEmpC 205 Open Country Dairy Limited v Stewart [PDF, 172 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 205 Open Country Dairy Limited v Stewart (Judgment of Judge M S King, 12 September 2025) FREEZING ORDER - VARIATION – APPLICATION TO DISCHARGE FREEZING ORDERS – evidence of fraud by respondent – real risk of dissipation of assets remains – respondent not to be prohibited from dealing with the assets for the purposes of ordinary living expenses – application to discharge freezing order declined – interests of justice favour variation- freezing order varied.  
  19. [2025] NZEmpC 198 Rural Practice Ltd and Abdul Jabbar v A Labour Inspector [PDF, 234 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 198 Rural Practice Ltd and Abdul Jabbar v A Labour Inspector (Judgment of Judge Holden, 10 September 2025) NON-DE NOVO CHALLENGE – challenge to penalties determination – issues about recusal of Authority member are procedural – barred by s 179(5) Employment Relations Act – concern to be dealt with by way of a de novo challenge to substantive determination – quantum ordered appropriate – setting penalties is an inexact science – breaches sufficiently serious to warrant 85 per cent starting point – breaches were multiple, systematic, intentional and involved deception – insufficient evidence of financial incapacity – support and kindness to employees is not a mitigating factor – late and partial performance deserves little credit – penalties not out of proportion – quantum sits in the middle by relative comparison to other cases – challenge dismissed
  20. [2025] NZEmpC 201 Pilgrim Ors v Attorney-General Ors [PDF, 202 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 201 Pilgrim & Ors v Attorney-General & Ors (Costs Judgment (No 2) of Chief Judge Inglis, 10 September 2025) APPLICATION FOR DISBURSEMENTS – questionable whether High Court Rules apply in determining disbursements – expenses may be broader than disbursements – application determined under conventional High Court Rules principles - investigator’s work partially overlapped with work ordinarily done by a lawyer – non-legal support provided by investigator to witnesses was reasonably necessary for the conduct of the proceeding – investigator expenses partially awarded – accountant did not give evidence in Court but provided useful material for other expert accountant – accountant invoice awarded – counsel accommodation could only cover hearing days and bookends