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

3630 items matching your search terms

  1. [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

  2. [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.

  3. [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.

  4. [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.

  5. [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.

  6. [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.

  7. [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.

  8. [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.

  9. [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.

  10. [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.