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

3642 items matching your search terms

  1. [2016] NZEmpC 45 Industrial Equipment Distributors Lifting Centre Ltd v Spark NZ Ltd [PDF, 131 KB]

    [2016] NZEmpC 45 Industrial Equipment Distributors Lifting Centre Ltd v Spark NZ Ltd & Vodafone(Judgment of Judge Corkill, 2 May 2016) DISCLOSURE – application for disclosure by third parties - evidence of improper remote access to plaintiff’s web-based system – need to confirm identity attached to IP addresses -second respondent properly served –– consideration of conditions necessary before orders for third party discovery made – application allowed.

  2. [2016] NZEmpC 39 Fox v Hereworth School Trust Board Costs [PDF, 281 KB]

    [2016] NZEmpC 39 Fox v Hereworth School Trust Board Costs  (Costs judgment of Chief Judge GL Colgan of 15 April 2016) COSTS – INSTALMENTS – three separate costs periods identified – arguments for and against payments by instalment considered – Court’s equity and good conscience jurisdiction applied – plaintiff’s lack of success on some interlocutory matter and rejection of Calderbank taken into account – total of $96, 482.03 awarded, to be paid by instalment.

  3. [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

  4. [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.

  5. [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.

  6. [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.

  7. [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.