Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Contract / Shared care agreement / Applicant purchased dog but could not continue to house and care for it / Entered a shared care agreement with Respondent / Breakdown of parties relationship and shared care arrangements / No terms for termination of agreement were established by parties / Applicant claimed return of possession or in the alternative an award of costs associated with purchase price, grooming and legal fees / Held: terms of the shared arrangement were not sufficiently clear, particularly relating to termination / Respondent to retain possession and ownership of the dog / Respondent had been primary carer of the dog for almost three years / Would be unjust for the Respondent to be forced to give up the dog / No basis for a costs award / Claim dismissed. 

[2025] NZEmpC 158 Cotton v Gosling (Oral judgment of Judge KG Smith 28 July 2025) NON-COMPLIANCE – SANCTION – s 140(6) Employment Relations Act – prolonged default – no remedial steps or appearance by defendant – $10,000 fine ordered – $4,000 of fine to be paid to plaintiff for inconvenience of enforcement steps – costs on application also ordered 

Objections to valuations by Council – Rating Valuations Act 1998, s 36 – Leave granted for withdrawal of objections – No costs order.

Leave to Appeal to the High Court – s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Reviewer was correct to dismiss application for want of jurisdiction. Applicant had not established judge any error of law capable of bona fide and serious argument. Outcome: appeal dismissed and no issue as to costs.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant was engaged by Respondent to complete jobs at different addresses / First job was leak detection and second job was pipe repair / Applicant unable to complete leak detection but completed pipe repair / Respondent disputed payment amount and claimed skills and prices charged were unreasonable / Applicant claimed outstanding payment of $1,372.64 / Held: Applicant performed services with reasonable care and skill in leak detection job / Applicant followed best practice to not dig underground until location of electrical cables were identified / Respondent did not provide the information so Applicant unable to proceed / However time spent determining cable location was required was excessive / Labour costs for leak detection reduced / Costs unreasonable for pipe repair / Plumber made unauthorised stop at private address, both jobs were 100m away and were attended to on same day which led to uncertainty around duplication of travel tim…

Insurance / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 (DTA) / Applicant hired vehicle and purchased insurance from Respondent / Applicant drove vehicle into signpost and damaged underside of engine / Respondent claimed policy did not cover engine damage as it came under underbody damage policy exclusion / Applicant disputed this and claimed declaration of non-liability for $4,999 / Held: more likely than not engine damage caused by Applicant / Evidence of oil leakage and large crack to underside of vehicle after collision / Frontal impact not significant enough to cause damage to underbody / Engine damage was underneath body of vehicle so falls within the underbody exclusion / Under DTA if claim for declaration of non-liability in respect of liquidated demand dismissed, Tribunal may make order for Applicant to repay Respondent / Applicant to pay Respondent $5,641.73 for underbody repair costs and other costs related to car hire / Claim dismissed.

Contract Law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant and family booked flights with two separate airlines  / First set of tickets from Respondent with international stopovers and second set of tickets with another airline / Respondent initially refused to check them in because Applicant’s passport expired in less than six months / They missed connecting flights and Applicant had to book alternative flights / Applicant claimed Respondent wrongly denied them boarding and sought $30,000 / Held: Respondent acted correctly by denying Applicant to board but incorrectly by not boarding his family / Applicant’s flights with Respondent ended at country which required passports to be valid for minimum six months / Applicant did not meet legal conditions for entry so Respondent not liable for his costs / Respondent failed to act with reasonable skill and care by not boarding family / No issues with family's passports so should have so should have boarded them / Respondent liable to pay replace…

Contract / Consumer law / Applicant purchased washing machine from Respondent for $2 / Respondent claimed collection by 10am condition of sale / Applicant did not collect by deadline so Respondent gave machine to third party / Applicant claimed $4,999 for value of machine / Held: no evidence collection deadline was condition of sale / Deadline not communicated to Applicant before or after sale / Respondent breached contract by disposing machine without providing Applicant reasonable opportunity for collection / Insufficient evidence washing machine had higher valuation than purchase price / Respondent to pay Applicant $2 / Claim allowed in part.

[2025] NZEmpC 146 RDJ v SGF (Interlocutory Judgment of Chief Judge Inglis, 16 July 2025) APPLICATION TO WAIVE OR POSTPONE FILING FEE - whether Employment Court has power to waive or postpone filing fee - other Courts have explicit Regulations that create the power to waive fees - power exists for regulations to be made enabling the Registrar to waive or postpone fees -  ability to waive or postpone fees is necessary for promoting the objects of the Act - while Registrar does not have power until regulations are made, Judges have power to waive or postpone fees – ultimate touchstones for exercise of power are equity and good conscience, with helpful guidance from High Court Fees Regulations - applicant is on legal aid - application granted.

Appeal against the Reviewer’s decision. Appeal against the Corporations decisions declining cover for mental injury – s 26, treatment injury – s 32 and claim for unreasonable delay – s 134(1)(b) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Corporation correctly declined cover for the various conditions and costs. Whether there was unreasonable delay. Whether there was a treatment injury caused by delay in diagnosis of autism/neurogenic bowel. Held: weight of medical evidence supported Corporation’s decision to decline cover for various conditions, these were not caused by the sexual abuse but were pre-existing or developmental. Outcome: Appeals dismissed.

[2025] NZEmpC 144 Lopez v Kāriki Pharma Limited (in liq) (Interlocutory judgment of Judge Beck, 14 July 2025) DISCONTINUANCE OF PROCEEDINGS – application to discontinue proceedings with multiple defendants – consent to discontinue not given by all defendants - discontinuance not an abuse of process or injustice - defendants not required as named parties – leave granted to discontinue proceedings against two defendants – costs to lie where they fall

Disability allowance - Appeal regarding the level of disability allowance to be paid to Appellant. No evidence that the Appellant was paid less than the amount of his qualifying health related costs arising from his disabilities. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

[2025] NZEmpC 141 A Labour Inspector v Dao  (Judgment (No 7) of Judge Beck, 10 July 2025) FREEZING ORDER – VARIATION – EXTENSION - application to vary and extend freezing orders – extension of freezing order granted by consent - frozen funds released for legal fees related to substantive proceedings - bank statements for unfrozen account to be provided on monthly basis - freezing orders not to remain in place indefinitely – date set down for review