Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

(Judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 4 April 2025) STRIKE-OUT – DELAY – challenge stayed for almost two years due to unpaid security costs – insufficient explanation for delay to pay security – prejudice caused to defendant – plaintiffs consent to matter being dismissed if no costs ordered against them – challenge dismissed

[2025] NZEmpC 69  Bread of Life Christian Church in Auckland v Chen (Judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 4 April 2025) STATUS OF WORKER – MINISTER OF RELIGION – IDENTITY OF EMPLOYER – LOST REMUNERATION – REINSTATEMENT – minister of religion became senior pastor of church – trust board of church split and dismissed minister – Authority ordered reinstatement – trust board dismissed minister again for redundancy – dispute over control of trust board being resolved in High Court – starting point to consider parties’ mutual rights and obligations – religious organisations differ from each other – there is no presumption against minister of religion intending to be legally bound – the Court is reluctant to resolve doctrinal disputes – the spiritual nature of a role is not determinative but is relevant – parties intended to be legally bound – parties’ relationship transcended but did not exclude legal relationship – parties’ intended for relationship to be employment relationship – no relevant in…

[2025] NZEmpC 67 Singh v Chand (judgment of Judge Holden 3 April 2025) URGENCY – not required by nature of proceedings – application dismissed

[2025] NZEmpC 65 Rural Practice Limited and Abdul-Jabbar v A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (Judgment of Judge Holden 3 April 2025) APPLICATION TO EXPAND SCOPE OF PROCEEDINGS – no basis to change the issue previously agreed on by the parties – LEAVE TO FILE FURTHER EVIDENCE – proposed evidence not relevant to the issue – applications declined

[2025] NZEmpC 63 A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment v JDFoods Ltd (Judgment of Judge Holden 1 April 2025) CONSENT – freezing order discharged by consent

[2025] NZEmpC 60 Courage & Ors-Pilgrim & Ors v Attorney-General & Ors (Interlocutory Judgment of Chief Judge Inglis, 1 April 2025) APPLICATION FOR STAY - Court has exclusive jurisdiction for judicial review of Labour Inspector - position will not change on appeal - while judicial review may be unnecessary depending on result of appeal, the plaintiffs wish to proceed with judicial review - balance of convenience points against stay - application declined

[2025] NZEmpC 58 Very Nice Productions Limited v Ormond (Costs Judgment of Judge M S King, 26 March 2025)COSTS – costs following discontinuance – scale costs awarded – costs on costs awarded

[2025] NZEmpC 56 Secretary for Education v Public Service Association (Judgment of Judge Holden, 24 March 2025) COSTS – application opposed on basis that proceedings concerned a poorly drafted collective agreement and there was broader benefit in resolving dispute – parties previously agreed to scale costs – costs awarded with modest reduction to recognise nature of proceedings

[2025] NZEmpC 54 Secretary for Education v Post Primary Teachers Association Te Wehengarua (judgment of Judge Holden 21 March 2025) APPLICATION FOR URGENCY – outcome of proceedings may impact upcoming union meetings – application granted

[2025] NZEmpC 52  ADO v Joan Fernie Charitable Trust Board (Consent judgment of Judge Beck, 20 March 2025) CONSENT – proceedings settled and discontinued – no issue as to costs – permanent non-publication orders made

[2025] NZEmpC 49 Matheson v Rainbow Confectionery Ltd (Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 18 March 2025) APPLICATIONS TO CHALLENGE DETERMINATIONS OUT OF TIME – lengthy delays – partly attributable to failures of representative – merits pointing away from granting applications – applications declined.

[2025] NZEmpC 47 NYF Ltd v Zhang (Judgment of Judge M King, 17 March 2025) DE NOVO CHALLENGE – COSTS – defendant partially successful in Authority and entitled to costs but on a reduced basis – insufficient information provided about settlement offers – parties both responsible for complexity of proceedings – second plaintiff not entitled to costs because their involvement in the proceedings was a result of their failures to provide employment agreement to defendant – engagement letter signed by defendant with representative is vague – defendant’s representative did not make submissions on meaning of engagement letter – reduction necessary as a result of terms of engagement letter – defendant’s representative cautioned from seeking to recover further costs from defendant – defendant’s representative encouraged to obtain legal advice on terms of engagement letter

[2025] NZEmpC 45 FAJ v GEK & HIL (Judgment of Chief Judge Inglis, 14 March 2024) APPLICATION FOR FREEZING ORDER - urgency - application made without notice - good arguable case established for misuse of company funds - evidence of dishonest activity gives rise to risk of dissipation - interests of justice point to granting application - application granted - APPLICATION FOR ANCILLARY ORDERS - application appropriate in the interests of justice - application granted