Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

[2020] NZEmpC 218 EPB Ltd v OST (Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 4 December 2020) APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE CHALLENGE – clear reasons for challenge being out of time – application granted - COSTS – employer discontinued challenge – costs awarded.

[2020] NZEmpC 216 Hatcher v Burgess Crowley Civil Ltd (Costs Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 4 December 2020) COSTS – GUIDELINE SCALE - $20,000 awarded for costs.

[2020] NZEmpC 214 Humphreys v Humphreys (Interlocutory Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 2 December 2020) APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF LITIGATION GUARDIAN – defendant is incapacitated – no objection to appointment of litigation guardian – litigation guardian appointed.

[2020] NZEmpC 212 BL & SL Porter Ltd v Higgs (Judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 1 December 2020) COSTS – GUIDELINE SCALE – proceedings were discontinued – $2000 awarded.

[2020] NZEmpC 210 A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Samra Holdings Ltd T/A Te Puna Liquor Centre (Judgment (No 3) of Judge Kathryn Beck, 30 November 2020) REVIEW OF FREEZING ORDER – freezing order extended.

[2020] NZEmpC 208 Wei v Sunlight JMB Future Ltd (Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 30 November 2020) APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION – challenge would not be nugatory if stay was not granted – challenge brought in good faith – company would be prejudiced by stay – application dismissed - APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS – employee may not be able to pay future costs and has refused to pay the costs already ordered – security for costs ordered.

[2020] NZEmpC 206 Awesome Art Ltd v Milne (Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 25 November 2020) EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A CHALLENGE – company did not challenge determination in time – reasons for delay are not persuasive – paying filing fee by itself is not sufficient without a statement of claim – no matter of principle of public importance at stake – application dismissed.

[2020] NZEmpC 203 A Labour Inspector v Chhoir (Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 23 November 2020) PENALTIES – QUANTUM – employer admitted serious breaches of minimum employment entitlements – whether statements made to Labour Inspector are admissible – inadmissibility was waived when documents were allowed into agreed summary of facts – employer faced language difficulties – equity and good conscience points toward not allowing statements – compensation order made – banning order inappropriate for first offence – $70,000 awarded in penalties.

[2020] NZEmpC 201 Alliance Group Ltd v Leckie (Consent Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 19 November 2020) CONSENT.

[2020] NZEmpC 199 Canterbury Westland Kindergarten Assoc Inc v Barnes (Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 19 November 2020) CONTRACTUAL INTERPRETATION – SICK LEAVE – whether employer had discretion over granting lengthy period of sick leave – sick leave can only be refused under limited circumstances – circumstances were not present here – sick leave awarded – COSTS IN THE AUTHORITY – costs awarded.

[2020] NZEmpC 197 New Zealand Professional Fire Fighters Union v Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 17 November 2020) CONTRACTUAL INTERPRETATION – STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – whether amended legislation overrules collective agreement in regards to redundancy procedure – amendment was clearly intended to change redundancy processes – clause contradicts legislation.

[2020] NZEmpC 195 NewZealand Fusion International Ltd (in administration) v A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 13 November 2020) APPLICATION FOR REHEARING – grounds for rehearing were more appropriate as grounds for appeal – media articles were not new evidence and not relevant – application declined.

[2020] NZEmpC 193 JGD v MBC Ltd (Interlocutory Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 13 November 2020) APPLICATION FOR INTERIM NON-PUBLICATION ORDER – principle of open justice does not apply strongly in the employment context – employee’s reputation would be harmed by publication of their name – employer does not oppose application – application granted.