Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

[2016] NZEmpC 82 Davidson v Kelly (Judgment No 3 of Judge B A Corkill, 29 June 2016) COMPLIANCE ORDER – breach of payment obligations

[2016] NZEmpC 80 Tribe v John Scott & Co Ltd (Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 23 June 2016) UNJUSTIFIABLE DISMISSAL – whether plaintiff resigned –reasonable for employer to take from correspondence that plaintiff intended resignation – insufficient steps taken to clear possible misapprehension – challenge dismissed.

[2016] NZEmpC 78 Northern Legal Ltd v Eketone-Te Kanawa (Consent Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 20 June 2016) CONSENT - settlement agreed – Authority determination set aside.

[2016] NZEmpC 76 Harlow v Western Property Management Ltd (in liq) (Oral Judgment (No 2) of Judge M E Perkins, 17 June 2016) FREEZING ORDER – no consent from liquidator to continue – no cause at Employment Court in aiding abetting breach of terms of consent determination – no breach of good faith as employment relationship had ended prior to breach –freezing orders against all respondents discharged.

[2016] NZEmpC 73 Hill v Tex Onsite Ltd (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 14 June 2016) APPLICATION FOR STAY – based on prejudice through imminent bankruptcy – balance of convenience favours granting of stay – overall interests of justice require conditions - $50,000 to be paid into Court – stay will lapse if conditions not met.

[2016] NZEmpC 71 Marx v Southern Cross Campus Board of Trustees (Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 10 June 2016) WHETHER GRIEVANCES RAISED WITHIN TIME –STANDING TO DEFEND CLAIM - asserting unjustified disadvantage without more and reserving right to take later action do not satisfy requirement of s 114 – oversight in not recording authorised representation overcome by later resolution – challenge dismissed.  

[2016] NZEmpC 70 S v I Ltd (Interlocutory Judgment (No 3) of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 10 June 2016) APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS – plaintiff’s demands for further and better disclosure – plaintiff’s impecuniosity – modest demand for security for costs – better way to ensure disproportionate time and expense not incurred is judicial control of disclosure process – application declined

[2016] NZEmpC 68 Modern Transport Engineers (2002) Ltd v Phillips (Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 7 June 2016) 90-DAY TRIAL PERIOD – whether provision for 90-day trial period can be invoked if copy of agreement cannot be produced – evidence showed it likely that agreement contained 90-day trial provision - law on compliance with ss 63A, 64 & 67A considered – employer’s failure to comply not automatic invalidation – agreement enforceable – no personal grievance challenging dismissal available.

[2016] NZEmpC 66 Scarborough v Micron Security Products Ltd (Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 2 June 2016) APPLICATION FOR STAY – application to stay costs award pending outcome of application to Court of Appeal for extension of time to appeal substantive judgment – stay granted - to lapse if extension of time or leave to appeal not granted.

[2016] NZEmpC 64 McIvor v Saad (Oral Judgment of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 30 May 2016) STAY – COMPLIANCE – SECURITY FOR COSTS – reasons for declining adjournment given – stay of execution of Court’s judgment pending outcome of application for leave to appeal to Court of Appeal granted on conditions – application for compliance adjourned – no orders for security for costs – costs of $750 awarded.  

[2016] NZEmpC 60 Eden Group Ltd v Jackson (Reasons for Judgment of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 24 May 2016) APPLICATION FOR FREEZING AND SEARCH ORDERS – REASONS – arguable case for breach of terms of employment agreement – evidence of deceptive establishment of means to set up in competition with employer while still in its employ – evidence of covert and potentially fraudulent collective preparation of first three respondents over lengthy warranted granting of both orders.

[2016] NZEmpC 54 H v A Ltd (Judgment of Judge Corkill, 10 May 2016) CHALLENGE TO SUSPENSION – DISADVANTAGE GRIEVANCES –Court’s order for  reinstatement did not preclude  employer from right to investigate further allegations – whether actions complied with CEA – contract interpretation principles considered and applied – no breach of CEA – no breach of good faith – significant procedural flaws in decision to suspend but suspension was not breach of order to reinstate – compensation of $6,000 awarded – parties to confer on lost remuneration.