From 3 June 2025 the Employment Court will start publishing its judgments from 24 hours after the delivery date, or the next business day, unless otherwise directed by a judge. Decisions of public interest may be published earlier, as directed by a judge.

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

3678 items matching your search terms

  1. [2015] NZEmpC 222 Marra Construction (2004) Ltd v Pretorius [PDF, 146 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 222 Marra Construction (2004) Ltd v Pretorius, (Judgment of Judge Corkill, 11 December 2015) EXTENSION OF TIME – whether application to lodge challenge out of time should be granted – whether justice of case justifies extension – no prejudice caused to respondent due to delay – partial compliance in that it was filed in time but fee was paid late – it would be unfair for applicant to be denied possibility of challenge – Held, leave to extend time granted, filing fee to be accepted by Registrar - costs to lie where they fall

  2. [2015] NZEmpC 220 Wellington Free Ambulance Service Inc v Austing costs [PDF, 67 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 220 Wellington Free Ambulance Service Inc v Austing costs, (Costs Judgment of Judge A D Ford, 10 December 2015. COSTS – whether costs were reasonably incurred – starting point of 66 per cent of costs reasonably incurred – whether factors justify an increase or decrease from that starting point – award of costs is discretionary – court not persuaded to make any adjustment to the usual starting point – disbursements considered and allowed in part – Held, plaintiff ordered to pay costs and disbursements in total sum of $17,535.

  3. [2015] NZEmpC 219 NZ Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc v AFFCO NZ Ltd [PDF, 108 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 219 NZ Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc v AFFCO NZ Ltd - (Interlocutory Judgment (No 6) of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 9 December 2015) IMPLEMENTATION OF FULL COURT’ ORDERS – position at Wairoa works– need to identify affected employees – allegations of disadvantageous shift work and denial of overtime for some Union employees – Union claim for past losses – applications by Union for facilitation and by AFFCO that bargaining has concluded – timetable for further applications.

  4. [2015] NZEmpC 218 Corporate Energy Ltd (in liq) (formerly known as Corporate Energy Ltd t/a Caltex Glenbrook) v Singh [PDF, 78 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 218 Corporate Energy Ltd (in liq) (formerly known as Corporate Energy Ltd t/a Caltex Glenbrook) v Singh (Oral Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 7 December 2015)  NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE – COSTS - plaintiff failed to file bundle – strike out application made – pre-empted by notice of discontinuance by liquidator – costs of $8,920 against plaintiff

  5. [2015] NZEmpC 215 Rimmer v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd interlocutory [PDF, 160 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 215 Rimmer v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd interlocutory, (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 3 December 2015) . ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT EVIDENCE – whether proposed evidence is beyond the scope of expert’s specialised knowledge and skill – whether the evidence substantially helps the Court – Evidence Act 2006 considered – given the technical nature of the health and safety issues to be considered in the case the threshold for admissibility is met for all paragraphs of the brief of evidence except for para 69 - Held, intended evidence is admissible apart from para 69 of the brief.

  6. [2015] NZEmpC 214 Goel v Director-General for Primary Industries [PDF, 135 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 214 Goel v Director-General for Primary Industries - (Judgment of Judge A D Ford, 2 December 2015). UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - no evidence of alleged managerial bullying or abuse of power – employees are required to carry out lawful and reasonable instructions given by their employers in the course of their duties – investigation process carried out into the misconduct allegations was exemplary – dismissal was a fair and reasonable option open to the employer – Held, dismissal was justifiable

  7. [2015] NZEmpC 209 Ale v Kids At Home Ltd [PDF, 145 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 209 Ale v Kids At Home Ltd (Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 1 December 2015)  RAISING GRIEVANCE OUT OF TIME – IMPLIED CONSENT – CORRECT FORUM FOR SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE – plaintiff alleged earlier event connected to later grievances raised within time – difference between discrete events and relevant background events – conduct implied consent – Authority did not dispose of whole claim – Court will not proceed to hear substantive claim

  8. [2015] NZEmpC 210 Allied Investments Ltd t/a Allied Security Ltd v Marriott [PDF, 214 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 210 Allied Investments Ltd t/a Allied Security Ltd v Marriott, (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 1 December 2015). CHALLENGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – circumstances were not so serious that a fair and reasonable employer could conclude serious misconduct – there were reasonable alternative options to dismissal – dismissal was not a decision a fair and reasonable employer could have undertaken in all the circumstances – a fair process was not followed - Held, personal grievance for unjustified dismissal upheld – compensation for lost wages – compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings – reduction of 10 per cent for contributory conduct – costs reserved.

  9. [2015] NZEmpC 212 Go Bus Transport Ltd v Hellyer interlocutory [PDF, 99 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 212 Go Bus Transport Ltd v Hellyer interlocutory (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 1 December 2015). STAY OF ORDERS – Stay sought in relation to determination of unjustified dismissal and ordered payment of lost wages, reimbursement for holiday pay and KiwiSaver contributions, compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings and interest – whether applicant’s right of challenge would be ineffectual if no stay granted – financial difficulties meant there could be difficulty recovering monies - successful litigant should receive awards obtained - challenge brought in good faith – Held, application for stay granted on terms until further order of Court – monies to be paid by applicant into Court.

  10. [2015] NZEmpC 213 Kirby v New Zealand China Friendship Society [PDF, 78 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 213 Kirby v New Zealand China Friendship Society (Costs Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 1 December 2015). ISSUE AS TO COSTS – plaintiff asserts order for costs was inappropriate – whether costs were reasonably incurred – starting point of 66 per cent of costs reasonably incurred – whether factors justify an increase or decrease from that starting point – no evidence to support the serious allegations alleged by the plaintiff – Held, 66 per cent of actual legal costs incurred is fair and reasonable – disbursements were also reasonable and were allowed.

  11. [2015] NZEmpC 208 Caffe Coffee (NZ) Ltd v Farrimond interlocutory [PDF, 130 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 208 Caffe Coffee (NZ) Ltd v Farrimond interlocutory (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge Corkill, 26 November 2015). DISCLOSURE – business opened in competition – alleged misuse of confidential information and intellectual property – extent of disclosure – Held, documents to be disclosed within 14 days of judgment - disclosure confined to plaintiff’s lawyers and independent expert - documents not to be copied unless by agreement or leave of the Court.

  12. [2015] NZEmpC 206 Fox v Hereworth School Trust Board [PDF, 620 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 206 Fox v Hereworth School Trust Board, (Judgment of Chief Judge Colgan, 25 November 2015). CHALLENGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE AND DISMISSAL –defendant acted in breach of good faith obligations towards plaintiff - defendant did not disadvantage plaintiff by giving formal employment warning - defendant dismissed plaintiff unjustifiably - dismissal effected by unauthorised representatives -plaintiff entitled to compensation for lost remuneration of $78,934, compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings of $6,666 - Employment Relations Authority costs order set aside- costs reserved.

  13. [2015] NZEmpC 204 NZ Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc v AFFCO NZ Ltd [PDF, 533 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 204 NZ Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc v AFFCO NZ Ltd - (Judgment of the full Court, 18 November 2015)  UNLAWFUL LOCKOUT- GOOD FAITH IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING - STATUS OF AFFCO SEASONAL MEATWORKERS – whether company could require returning employees to sign individual employment agreements (IEAs) while bargaining for collective agreement was continuing – contractual interpretation approach taken – previous case law reviewed – seasonal meatworkers found to be employees – Company unlawfully insisted on returning workers signing IEAs – bad faith in not involving union and bargaining individually in course of collective bargaining - parties to advise Court within seven days of steps taken towards mediation.

  14. [2015] NZEmpC 203 Fredericks v VIP Frames and Trusses Ltd [PDF, 206 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 203 Fredericks v VIP Frames and Trusses Ltd (Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 17 November 2015) (PDF 218KB )GOOD FAITH – DUTY TO PROVIDE SAE WORKPLACE - CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL – workplace accident – employee dissatisfaction with employer response and reinstatement following injury – inappropriate lockout – compensation of $12,000 awarded – for unjustified disadvantage – no constructive dismissal – no evidence of bad faith.

  15. [2015] NZEmpC 201 Owen v CE of the Department of Corrections [PDF, 174 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 201 Owen v CE of the Department of Corrections - (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 16 November 2015) JURISDICTION – whether s179(5) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 precludes the Court from hearing and determining a challenge against the Employment Relations Authority – Held – objection under s179(5) of the Act is upheld, challenge dismissed - costs reserved.[2015] NZEmpC 201Owen v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 16 November 2015) JURISDICTION – whether s179(5) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 precludes the Court from hearing and determining a challenge against the Employment Relations Authority – Held – objection under s179(5) of the Act is upheld, challenge dismissed - costs reserved.