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

3610 items matching your search terms

  1. [2018] NZEmpC 8 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs NZ Ltd [PDF, 1.4 MB]

    [2018] NZEmpC 8 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd (Costs Judgment (No 1) of Judge B A Corkill, 23 February 2018) COSTS IN RELATION TO MULTIPLE JUDGMENTS – LIABILITY FOR COSTS - Calderbank offers unreasonably rejected – each of 19 interlocutory judgments dealt with separately – range from small costs in favour of plaintiff to indemnity costs in favour of defendant – other costs detailed – increased costs justified – adjustment for plaintiff’s modest success - GST not allowed for – total costs to defendant more than $198, 000– question of liability - plaintiff in person to pay $10,000 - non-party funding considered– personal liability of non-party as impropriety shown – joint and several liability found – costs in Authority to be paid by plaintiff personally - $10,500; non-party personally to pay $19,164.89; funding parties to pay jointly and severally over $166,000.

  2. [2017] NZEmpC 166 Sawyer v VC of Victoria University [PDF, 425 KB]

    [2017] NZEmpC 166 Sawyer v The Vice-Chancellor of Victoria University of Wellington (Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 21 December 2017) APPLICATION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – PENALTIES – penalties ordered by Authority for breach of settlement agreement – validity of agreement disputed – proceedings in Court – factors in granting stay considered – overall interests of justice favour not ordering a stay – application dismissed.

  3. [2017] NZEmpC 164 NZPSA v IRD [PDF, 519 KB]

    [2017] NZEmpC 164 New Zealand Public Service Assoc Te Pukenga Here Tikanga Mahi v Commissioner and Chief Executive Inland Revenue Department Te Tari Taake (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 21 December 2017) REPRESENTATION –whether defendant breached ss 32 and 236 when negotiating directly with individuals over restructured positions -  s 32 does not apply as issue relates to a change process, not collective bargaining – Part 6 applies, not Part 5 – s 236 breached - defendant should have dealt with union as instructed by members – good faith obligations apply – union’s challenge succeeds.

  4. [2017] NZEmpC 162 NZPSA v IRD [PDF, 110 KB]

    [2017] NZEmpC 162 New Zealand Public Service Assoc Te Pukenga Here Tikanga Mahi v Commissioner and Chief Executive Inland Revenue Department Te Tari Taake (Interim Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 19 December 2017) RESTRUCTURING - REPRESENTATION – COLLECTIVE BARGAINING – offers made prior to initiation of bargaining – s 32 does not apply – s 236 applied considering also CEA and good faith – plaintiff dealt with employees directly when instructed to send communications to union – s 236 breached.

  5. [2017] NZEmpC 157 Johnston v The Fletcher Construction Co Ltd [PDF, 375 KB]

    [2017] NZEmpC 157 Johnston v The Fletcher Construction Co Ltd (Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 11 December 2017) REMOVAL OF PROCEEDINGS – EXTENSION OF TIME TO CHALLENGE – whether s179 or s 178(3) available when Authority declines application to remove – statutory interpretation – s 178(3) appropriate route – Act does not contemplate two alternative routes for challenge - questions as formed at Authority do not constrain applicant or Court – no presumption for or against removal to Court-  what constitutes important issue of law considered - important of law established -  application granted.

  6. [2017] EmpC 156 Coomer v JA McCallum & Son Ltd [PDF, 309 KB]

    [2017] NZEmpC 156 Coomer v JA McCallum and Son Ltd (Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 8 December 2017) COSTS – SUCCESSFUL PARTY – unjustified disadvantage claim successful at Authority – constructive dismissal claim dismissed – wages claim unsuccessful – successful party awarded costs but reduced to recognise partial lack of success – plaintiff achieved success only through lodging claim – amount reduced to reflect partial success of defendant - $4500 awarded to plaintiff.