Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

[2015] NZEmpC 175 Able Owl Ltd v Gladden (Costs Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 5 October 2015)  COSTS – no allowance for advocate’s costs – disbursements can include travel to JSC – disbursements awarded.

[2015] NZEmpC 169 Tertiary Education Union v Vice-Chancellor University of Auckland - (Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 30 September 2015)  INTERPRETATION OF CLAUSE IN COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT – whether words of agreement meant that Vice-Chancellor could not make an amendment to policy without agreement of union – contract interpretation principles summarised – place of extrinsic materials considered – Vice-Chancellor may amend policy without agreement once participatory process is completed.

[2015] NZEmpC 171 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd - (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 30 September 2015)  UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL - Employment transferred to rival business under Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 – issues as to whether promotion and increase in wages prior to transfer was genuine – terminology and purpose of s69I addressed – whether sham principles applied - employees terms deliberately inflated - representations made to subsequent employer were fictitious – employee could not have had legitimate expectation that employer had provided anything other than fictional increases – undue delay on part of employer in resolving uncertainties – stress and depression due to employment - Held, disadvantage grievance upheld – compensation of $1500 for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings after allowance for contributory behaviour

[2015] NZEmpC 173 Roy v Board of Trustees of Tamaki College oral interlocutory (Oral interlocutory judgment of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 30 September 2015) APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO BEING NEW EVIDENCE – letters written prior to hearing relevant to reinstatement claim – relevance established – leave granted

[2015] NZEmpC 167 Mighty River Power Ltd v Halwala (Consent Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 28 September 2015) CHALLENGE TO NON-PUBLICATION ORDER GRANTED AT AUTHORITY – order lifted by consent.

[2015] NZEmpC 164 Wellington Free Ambulance Service Inc v Austing Anor

[2015] NZEmpC 161 Vince Roberts Electrical Ltd v Carroll and Roberts - (Costs Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 18 September 2015) COSTS – principles for awarding costs listed – obstructive tactics and rejected Calderbank offer taken into account - costs of $60,000 awarded to defendant

[2015] NZEmpC 163 Bay of Plenty DHB v Cliff - (Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 18 September 2015) LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-CHALLENGE OUT OF TIME – delay considered – no prejudice to respondent – overall interests of justice applied– leave granted

[2015] NZEmpC 159 Smith Crane & Construction Ltd v Hall - (Costs judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 17 September 2015) COSTS – Da Cruz principles still apply – notional daily rate applied – no reason for uplift or decrease in usual starting rate of 66 per cent of costs actually and reasonably incurred for costs in the Authority – sch 2 and 3 of High Court Rules applied – awarded costs in the Court increased from starting rate of 66 per cent of costs actually and reasonably incurred to 75 per cent due to Calderbank offer - GST neutral position adopted – Held, $1,821.56 awarded to defendant for costs in Authority – $7,800 awarded to defendant for costs in Court.

[2015] NZEmpC 157 Labour Inspector v Cypress Villas Ltd (Judgment of the Full Court, 16 September 2015) SECTION 234 - INTERPRETATION - DISSENT - consideration of application of s 234 of the ERA 2000 – first consideration of corporate veil-piercing where Labour Inspector has commenced action against company for recovery of minimum wages and holiday pay – consideration of legislative purpose and history of the section – plain meaning of words considered – steps outlined – relationship between subss(2) & (3) clarified - burden of proof addressed: Majority – intention not required for default – Authority discretion important: Dissent – knowledge of default required – different standard required for employers and directors, officers and agents of a company – “directed or authorised the default” to be read as a whole – intention of Parliament relevant to interpretation

[2015] NZEmpC 155 Zonneveld (Labour Inspector) v Maudaara Limited (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 10 September 2015) APPLICATION TO FILE STATEMENT OF CLAIM OUT OF TIME – Delay due to inadvertent misunderstanding – delay was minimal - absence of prejudice or hardship to respondent – there are bona fide issues for resolution in the challenge – steps taken to remedy default as soon as it was discovered – application not opposed - Held, leave granted to applicant to file statement of claim.

[2015] NZEmpC 152 Juahm Industries Company Limited v Isnanto (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 2 September 2015) APPLICATION TO FILE STATEMENT OF DEFENCE OUT OF TIME - Whether leave should be granted to allow defendants to file statement of defence out of time – consideration of jurisdiction to extend time – s219 Employment Relations Act 2000 – counsel’s error regarding timeframes was inadvertent rather than deliberate – reason for delay satisfactorily explained – delay was minimal – absence of prejudice or hardship to plaintiff – defendants not to be prejudiced by inadvertent error of their lawyer – overall justice justifies grant of leave – Held, drafted statement of defence to be treated as operative statement of defence.

[2015] NZEmpC 150 Burrowes v Commissioner of Police - (Costs Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 1 September 2015) COSTS – Application for costs in the Employment Relations Authority and costs in Employment Court – whether costs were reasonably incurred – Sixty-six per cent starting point – whether factors justify increase or decrease – consideration as to how costs to be approached where both parties have measure of success – assessment as to reliance to be placed on High Court Rules in relation to costs – consideration as to disbursements – consideration as to Calderbank offer – Held, percentage of costs in both the Authority and the Court awarded to plaintiff.