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

3903 items matching your search terms

  1. [2025] NZEmpC 172 South Pole IP Holding (NZ) Limited v Hao [PDF, 200 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 172 South Pole IP Holding (NZ) Limited v Hao (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge M S King, 13 August 2025) APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION – insufficient evidence to show plaintiff impecunious - defendant entitled to fruits of success – defendant would be adversely impacted by a stay – challenge not rendered ineffectual by stay - balance of convenience and interests of justice points against stay – application declined

  2. 2025] NZEmpC 171 NZEI Te Tiu Roa Inc v Secretary for Education [PDF, 265 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 171 NZEI Te Tiu Roa Inc v Secretary for Education (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge Helen Doyle 13 August 2025) APPLICATION FOR INTERIM INJUNCTION - pay deductions for partial strikes - granting interim injunction would have the effect of entirely preventing the pay deductions, so more than a barely arguable case is required - arguable (not strongly) case that notice of pay deduction was unlawful - balance of convenience points against granting injunction - application declined

  3. [2025] NZEmpC 168 Jenner v Corrections Association of New Zealand Incf [PDF, 287 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 168 Jenner v Corrections Association of New Zealand Inc (Reasons for judgment of Judge Beck, 11 August 2025) APPLICATION FOR AN INTERIM INJUNCTION –parties disagree on interpretation of union constitution – real contest between the parties - natural justice rights of applicant breached – applicant has a respectable chance of success in judicial review – interim orders are necessary to preserve the position of the applicant – no prejudice to be suffered by respondent – application granted

  4. [2025] NZEmpC 167 Lyttelton Port Company Ltd v Maritime Union of New Zealand and Anor [PDF, 330 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 167 Lyttelton Port Company Ltd v Maritime Union of New Zealand and Anor (Judgment of Judge JC Holden, 8 August 2025) NON-DE NOVO CHALLENGES – obligations in developing restructure proposal – no breach of good faith to not involve unions in development stage – section 4(1A) ER Act – employer required to provide information and opportunity to comment – no higher engagement required by the Act for unions – interpretation of obligations under collective agreement in dispute – contracting out clause not applicable – clause concerning cooperation and consultation on matters of mutual interest applicable – restructure affecting union members is a matter of mutual interest for union and employer – cooperation does not mandate early engagement – reinforces need for parties to take a genuine and open approach to consultation – no breach of agreement – employer undertook structured consultation as ordered by Authority.

  5. [2025] NZEmpC 161 Chief of Defence Force v YFX [PDF, 311 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 161  Chief of Defence Force v YFX  (Judgment of Judge KG Smith, 1 August 2025) DE NOVO CHALLENGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL – employer challenged Authority’s finding of constructive dismissal – employee plead nine disadvantage grievances – several raised out of time – no grievances made out – employer provided support in a challenging external process – took reasonable steps to mitigate a noise hazard – no disadvantage arising from a letter short of a disciplinary action – employer constructive in clarifying performance expectations – not obligated to investigate an unmaterialised complaint about manager – appropriately delayed finalising support plan pending medical advice – requested medical clearance for mediation despite prior advice about employee’s capacity – insensitive but no breach of good faith – situation was challenging and dynamic for both parties – employee had a unique mental health condition – employer sought to manage the difficul…

  6. [2025] NZEmpC 159 McCormack v Reserve Bank of New Zealand [PDF, 239 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 159 McCormack v Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Judgment of Judge M S King, 28 July 2025)   APPLICATION FOR INTERIM REINSTATEMENT – employee dismissed for performance-related issues – employee alleges performance process retaliation for protected disclosure - arguable case for permanent reinstatement – performance management process significant and genuine - balance of convenience and interests of justice point against reinstatement – application declined.

  7. [2025] NZEmpC 157 Allied Investments Ltd v Jones [PDF, 282 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 157 Allied Investments Ltd v Jones (judgment of Judge JC Holden, 28 July 2025) CATCHWORDS DE NOVO CHALLENGE – CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL – existing EA was transferred to new employer on same terms – new employer claimed previous employer wrongly interpreted commission provisions – new commission calculations would have significantly reduced employee’s income – employer was uncompromising – employee made it clear he would have no choice but to resign – original calculation methodology constituted a term of the EA – serious breach with resignation reasonably foreseeable – unjustified constructive dismissal upheld – PRE-TERMINATION ACTIVITY – employee cleared laptop data but not maliciously and no loss resulted – employee entitled to plan future business while still employed – no restraint of trade – no breaches of EA or good faith/fidelity – USE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION – employer contended employee used confidential information in pursuing new competing business – confident…

  8. [2025] NZEmpC 152 Tillmans Fine Furniture Ltd v Rookes [PDF, 250 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 152 Tillmans Fine Furniture Ltd v Rookes (Judgment of KG Smith 22 July 2025) NON-DE NOVO CHALLENGE – fixed term agreement found invalid by Authority –  Employer argues Authority erred in its approach to s 66 ER Act – what does it mean to have genuine reasons based on reasonable grounds? – the test is objective as suggested by the language – genuine reasons are sincere reasons relating to proper purposes and are non-exploitative – fulfilling a moral duty is a genuine reason – however s 66 requires a wider investigation into all the circumstances of the fixed term – purely helping the employee could have been achieved by other methods – the company had an ongoing need for the position – the company benefitted from the arrangement while limiting its exposure to employee recourse – in context the fixed term had a purpose of limiting employee’s rights – fixed term invalid under s 66(3) – challenge unsuccessful.

  9. [2025] NZEmpC 150 Courage and Pilgrim v The Attorney General [PDF, 185 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 150 Courage and Pilgrim v The Attorney General (Interlocutory Judgment of Chief Judge Christina  Inglis, 21 July 2025) APPLICATION FOR DISCLOSURE OF UNREDACTED DOCUMENTS – privacy issues and relevance raised; Attorney-General working through a process to address privacy issues – that process should be given time to be completed – application declined but with leave granted to bring the matter back if necessary.