[2016] NZEmpC 41 Davidson v Kelly no.2 judgment (Consent judgment no 2 of Judge Corkill of 15 April 2016.) COMPLIANCE ORDER – plaintiff put forward no basis to resist enforcement steps.
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.
3630 items matching your search terms
-
[2016] NZEmpC 41 Davidson v Kelly second judgment [PDF, 68 KB] -
[2016] NZEmpC 40 Burns V Randwick Meat Co Limited consent [PDF, 13 KB] [2016] NZEmpC 40 Burns V Randwick Meat Co Limited consent judgment (Judgment of Judge Corkill of 15 April 2016 ) CONSENT – terms of settlement subject to confidential agreement – order of non-publication
-
[2016] NZEmpC 42 ITE v ALA [PDF, 233 KB] [2016] NZEmpC 42 ITE v ALA Judgement of Judge Christina Inglis (Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 15 April 2016) BREACH OF CONFIDENTIALITY OBLIGATIONS – clear unambiguous clauses in settlement agreement – webpage, video and emails breached agreement – deliberate sustained breaches justifying penalty of $6,000 – compliance orders issued – permanent non-publication orders granted – indemnity costs awarded as per contractual agreement.
-
[2016] NZEmpC 37 Zespri International Limited v Yu third Interlocutory [PDF, 100 KB] [2016] NZEmpC 37 Zespri International Limited v Yu Interlocutory No 3 (Interlocutory Judgment number 3 of Chief Judge Colgan of 15 April 2016) KEY SEARCH TERMS – two categories of documents, personal and privileged – key words specified for purpose of expert search – parties to confer on request for combination search
-
[2016] NZCA 126 CA658/2015 The Commissioner of Salford School v Campbell [PDF, 125 KB] The application for leave dismissed, costs ordered, 14 April 2016.
-
[2016] NZCA 121 CA700/2015 AFFCO New Zealand Limited v NZ Meat Works Related Trades Union Inc & Ors [PDF, 153 KB] The application for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Employment Court in New Zealand Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc v AFFCO New Zealand Ltd is granted, 13 April 2016
-
[2016] NZEmpC 35 Labour Inspector v Taste of Egypt Ltd [PDF, 68 KB] [2016] NZEmpC 35 Labour Inspector v Taste of Egypt Ltd- (Judgment of Chief Judge Colgan, 13 April 2016) FREEZING ORDER SET ASIDE – conditional on respondent paying to Registrar the sum of $90,140.85 as security - judicial settlement conference to be arranged.
-
[2016] NZEmpC 36 Western Bay of Plenty DHB v McInnes [PDF, 155 KB] [2016] NZEmpC 36 Western Bay of Plenty DHB v McInnes - judgment of Judge C Inglis (Judgment of Judge Inglis of 13 April 2016) INTERIM REINSTATEMENT – principles applying to interim reinstatement – arguable case found – balance of convenience and overall justice favoured plaintiff – interim reinstatement declined.
-
[2016] NZEmpC 34 Advance International Cleaning Systems NZ Limited v Hamilton [PDF, 160 KB] [2016] NZEmpC 34 Advance International Cleaning Systems (NZ) Limited v Hamilton (Judgment of Judge Corkill of 7 April 2016) APPLICATION TO FILE CHALLENGE OUT OF TIME – unacceptable delays but genuine issues for assessment by the Court– summary of principles applying to leave to challenge out of time – leave granted.
-
[2016] NZEmpC 33 Lewis v JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A [PDF, 166 KB] [2016] NZEmpC 33 Lewis v JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A (Costs judgment of Chief Judge GL Colgan of 7 April 2016) COSTS ON APPLICATION FOR STRIKE-OUT –settlement offers did not address reputational issues– not a test case or novel point of law – ability to pay has never been a decisive factor – no factors justifying uplift –reasonable costs in this case ($50,000) were less than actual costs – comparison of High Court cost scale, Employment Court pilot scale and two-thirds assessment –similar result – costs of $36,667 plus disbursements awarded to defendant
-
[2016] NZEmpC 31 A Labour Inspector v Taste of Egypt Limited [PDF, 473 KB] [2016] NZEmpC 31 A Labour Inspector v Taste of Egypt Limited (Chief Judge GL Colgan of 5 April 2016, reasons for the judgment)
-
[2016] NZEmpC 24 Myatt (Labour Inspector) v Pacific Appliances Limited [PDF, 90 KB] [2016] NZEmpC 24 Myatt (Labour Inspector) v Pacific Appliances Limited -(Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 21 March 2016) FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ORDERS – Application by Labour Inspector pursuant to s140(6) of Employment Relations Act 2000 – seeks fine for failure to comply with orders from Employment Relations Authority – failure to remediate breaches of minimum standards of employment pursuant to issued Improvement Notice – no objection to the Notice – by evidence and documents produced Court satisfied that defendant failed to pay penalty and filing fees order by the Authority – factors to be taken into account when determining sanctions discussed – disregard and obstructive behaviour shown by defendant – high level of culpability – need to denounce behaviour – need for deterrence – Held, defendant fined $15,000 – defendant to make contribution to costs of Ministry of Justice as well as costs of the plaintiff.
-
[2016] NZ EmpC 29 Kilpatrick v Air NZ Ltd [PDF, 93 KB] [2016] NZ EmpC 29 Kilpatrick v Air NZ Ltd - (Costs Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 23 March 2016) COSTS – plaintiff’s financial position considered – some actions of plaintiff led to unnecessary increased costs for defendant – uplift of $7,00 – total costs awarded $80,000 – costs in Authority added
-
[2016] NZEmpC 28 Bidvest New Zealand Ltd v First Union Inc [PDF, 87 KB] [2016] NZEmpC 28 Bidvest New Zealand Ltd v First Union Inc - (Chief Judge Colgan, 23 March 2016) COSTS – substantive matter discontinued – costs of $6697 plus disbursements awarded to plaintiff.
-
[2016] NZEmpC 30 S v I Limited (Formerly L Limited) oral interlocutory [PDF, 86 KB] [2016] NZEmpC 30 S v I Limited (Formerly L Limited) (Oral Interlocutory Judgment of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 23 March 2016)
-
[2016] NZEmpC 26 Ale v Kids At Home Limited [PDF, 86 KB] [2016] NZEmpC 26 Ale v Kids At Home Limited (Costs Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 22 March 2016) COSTS – cl 19 of sch 3 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 – reg 68(1) of the Employment Court Regulations 2000 – discretion to award costs is broad, to be exercised judicially and in accordance with principle – costs follow the event – starting point of 66 per cent of actual and reasonable costs incurred – factors to justify an increase or decrease assessed – Held, defendant to pay plaintiff contribution to costs of $2,100, as well as $300 contribution to costs in seeking costs and $322.84 disbursements.
-
[2016] NZEmpC 25 Lawson v New Zealand Transport Agency second interlocutory [PDF, 79 KB] [2016] NZEmpC 25 Lawson v New Zealand Transport Agency (Interlocutory Judgment No 2 of Judge Christina Inglis, 22 March 2016) EXTENSION OF TIME - FILE NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF CHALLENGE – PAYMENTS TO COURT – whether extension of time is in the interests of justice – original timeframes reflected pragmatic attempt to balance interests of parties having regard to circumstances at the time – interest in ensuring timeframes and consequences of orders are observed – original timeframe was lengthy – requested extension is not overly lengthy – Court in position to accommodate early fixture if challenge succeeds – declining application risks injustice to plaintiff – plaintiff has not ignored or flouted Court orders – Held, extension granted in overall interests of justice.
-
[2016] NZEmpC 27 Henderson v Nelson Marlborough DHB [PDF, 109 KB] [2016] NZEmpC 27 Henderson v Nelson Marlborough DHB - (Interlocutory Judgment of B A Judge Corkill, 22 March 2016) COSTS APPLICATIONS – SERVICE OF STATEMENT OF CLAIM – two separate proceedings – email accepted as method of service of statement of claim in relation to one challenge but not the other – whether each challenge constituted separate proceedings – reg 28 of the Employment Court Regulations 2000 – on plain ordinary meaning of notice given by defendant the advice for method of service was limited to only one proceeding – plaintiff should have adopted an alternative means of service when indicated at outset – Held, no costs awarded.
-
[2016] NZEmpC 23 Banks v Hockey Manawatu Inc [PDF, 235 KB] [2016] NZEmpC 23 Banks v Hockey Manawatu Inc - (Judgment of Judge A D Ford, 21 March 2016) HEARING DE NOVO – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - good faith – whether dismissal unjustified - alleged attempt to vary terms and conditions of employment agreement - alleged refusal to attend mediation – application to file amended statement of claim – within interests of justice – no prejudice to defendant if granted – application to file amended claim granted – s103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 – whether actions of employer were what a fair and reasonable employer would have done - procedural and substantive failures – Held, unjustified dismissal upheld – reinstatement impracticable – 10 per cent contributory conduct – plaintiff awarded $20,000 for compensation – loss of earnings awarded.
-
[2016] NZEmpC 22 Keerithi Merennage v Ritchies Transport Holdings Limited [PDF, 182 KB] [2016] NZEmpC 22 Keerithi Merennage v Ritchies Transport Holdings Limited - (Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 17 March 2016) COSTS – cl 19 sch 3 Employment Relations Act 2000 – reg 68(1) Employment Court Regulations 2000 – discretion to award costs is to be exercised judicially and in accordance with principle – costs follow event - usual starting point of 66 per cent of actual and reasonable costs incurred – factors justifying increase or decrease from starting point considered – discussion regarding whether GST is to be awarded – Held, plaintiff to pay defendant $33,000 contribution to costs, together with disbursements.
-
[2016] NZEmpC 21 Davidson v Kelly [PDF, 71 KB] [2016] NZEmpC 21 Davidson v Kelly - (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 15 March 2016) COMPLIANCE ORDER – Compliance order that defendant pay plaintiff $35,000 – issue as to interest is reserved
-
[2016] NZEmpC 20 Roy v Board of Trustees of Tamaki College [PDF, 522 KB] [2016] NZEmpC 20 Roy v Board of Trustees of Tamaki College (Judgment of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 14 March 2016) UNJUSTIFIED CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL CLAIM - witness credibility – whether employer’s actions were justifiable – good faith obligations in employment – whether settlement barred plaintiff pursuing grievance - s 238 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 – observations on human rights in employment, religion in state schools and employer’s lawful directions – parties settled plaintiff’s claims to relief upon resignation - plaintiff’s claim is barred from consideration – if not barred from consideration plaintiff was not dismissed constructively and unjustifiably – plaintiff’s contributory conduct would have significantly reduced remedies – reinstatement impractical – Held, claim unsuccessful – defendant entitled to costs.
-
[2016] NZEmpC 19 O'Shea (Labour Inspector) v Pekanga O Te Awa Farms Ltd [PDF, 247 KB] [2016] NZEmpC 19 O'Shea (Labour Inspector) v Pekanga O Te Awa Farms Ltd - (Judgment of Judge Corkill, 11 March 2016) CHALLENGE – QUANTUM OF PENALTY – whether more significant penalty should be imposed given multiple breaches of Minimum Wage Act 1983 and Holidays Act 2003 - appropriate to assess penalties in respect of each breach - necessary to consider totality of individual breaches to ensure proportionate outcome – not appropriate to impose global penalty – multiplicity of breaches aggravating factor - mitigating factors considered – Held, Respondent to pay $4,500 to the Crown - no order as to costs.
-
[2016] NZCA 54 CA427/2015 Scarborough v Micron Security Products Limited [PDF, 149 KB] Leave to appeal in CA427/2015 and CA578/2015 is declined. Costs are ordered, 9 March 2016.
-
[2016] NZEmpC 18 Saomai v Prestige Demolition Services Ltd [PDF, 122 KB] [2016] NZEmpC 18 Saomai v Prestige Demolition Services Ltd - (29 February 2016, Chief Judge Colgan) REFUSAL OF WITHOUT NOTICE FREEZING ORDER - REASONS FOR JUDGMENT –- no reference to applicant’s obligation to fully disclose all material facts including possible defences and information casting doubt on applicant’s ability to discharge obligations created by an undertaking as to damages – no indication of proceedings having been filed or to be filed in the Authority pursuant to the Court’s Practice Direction on search and freezing orders - no mention in papers as to property to which a freezing order may have attached - no draft order for consideration of Court - application did not specify any information about type of injunctive relief sought- there was no proposed duration of the order or other arrangements whereby the matter could be back before the Court after service on respondent - not possible to discern the terms of the order sought – no order relating to costs.