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

3640 items matching your search terms

  1. [2015] NZEmpC 155 Zonneveld (Labour Inspector) v Maudaara Limited [PDF, 80 KB]

    [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.

  2. [2015] NZEmpC 152 Juahm Industries Company Limited v Isnanto interlocutory [PDF, 93 KB]

    [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.

  3. [2015] NZEmpC 150 Burrowes v Commissioner of Police [PDF, 224 KB]

    [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.

  4. [2015] NZEmpC 148 Lean Meats Oamaru Ltd v NZ Meat Workers Union [PDF, 98 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 148 Lean Meats Oamaru Ltd v NZ Meat Workers Union - (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 31 August 2015) CHALLENGE – ADMISSIBILITY – objection to admissibility of brief of evidence on basis that it does no more than tend to prove the negotiating stances of parties during collective bargaining process – objection on basis of evidence being opinion evidence - extrinsic evidence admissible if tends to establish circumstance which objectively shows what parties intended their words in agreement to mean – opinion may be regarded as part of witnesses understanding of relevant provisions – Held, application dismissed - evidence admissible – reliability and weight of evidence may be tested at hearing

  5. [2015] NZEmpC 147 Rodkiss v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd [PDF, 268 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 147 Rodkiss v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd - (Costs Judgment of Judge A D Ford, 27 August 2015). COSTS – Calderbank offer made in the Employment Relations Authority relevant to issue of costs – GST neutral approach in relation to costs applied – consideration as to what qualifies as a recoverable disbursement – consideration as to factors justifying an increase or decrease from starting point of 66 percent contribution towards fair and reasonable costs - Held, percentage of costs and disbursements awarded to applicant.

  6. [2015] NZEmpC 142 First Union Inc v Jacks Hardware & Timber Ltd preliminary [PDF, 183 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 142  First Union Inc v Jacks Hardware & Timber Ltd (Preliminary Judgment of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 17 August 2015) WHETHER LAW PRIOR TO OR FOLLOWING AMENDMENT TO S 33 APPLIES – whether wording of transitional provision applies to all bargaining or just to that begun and not concluded – wording must refer only to bargaining not concluded at 6 March 2015 - whether collective bargaining was ended lawfully prior to amendment remains for hearing

  7. [2015] NZEmpC 144 NZ Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc v AFFCO NZ Ltd [PDF, 117 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 144 NZ Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc v AFFCO NZ Ltd - (Oral Interlocutory Judgment (No3) of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 17 August 2015) APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM – consideration of factors determining whether expanded application would affect overall justice – court’s approach to allow application where amendments enable court to focus on the real disputes between the parties - leave granted

  8. [2015] NZEmpC 138 NZ Meat Workers Union Inc v South Pacific Meats Ltd and Talley [PDF, 415 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 138 NZ Meat Workers Union Inc v South Pacific Meats Ltd and Talley (Judgment of Judge G L Colgan, 7 August 2015)  AUTHORITY’S JURISDICTION –COMMON LAW RIGHT TO PENALTY PRIVILEGE –whether there is a residual common law privilege against self-incrimination in civil penalty proceedings – whether this exists at Authority - comparison of penalty privilege rights at Authority and Employment Court – penalty proceedings not criminal proceedings – reg 39(2) negates right to disclosure – can be determined by Court – - NZBORA s 27,29 considered – Evidence Act ss 60, 63 considered – privilege applies to corporations – two narrow self-incrimination privileges may be asserted at the Authority.

  9. [2015] NZEmpC 135 Fagotti v Acme & Co Ltd [PDF, 402 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 135 Fagotti v Acme & Co Ltd (Judgment of the Full Court, 5 August 2015) COSTS AT THE AUTHORITY – CALDERBANK OFFERS – INDEMNITY COSTS – GST – whether the Authority should be influenced by the circumstances and justice of a particular case in awarding costs – different principles apply in the Authority and the Court – daily tariff at Authority has value – GST issue left for future case – not a case for indemnity costs – challenge dismissed.

  10. [2015] NZEmpC 132 Waterford Holdings Ltd v Morunga [PDF, 197 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 132  Waterford Holdings Ltd v Morunga - (Judgment of B A Corkill, 3 August 2015) UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – dismissal for serious misconduct with alleged animal cruelty towards farm stock – issues of procedural fairness – lost remuneration must be as a result of the grievance – procedural error did not result in loss remuneration - compensation for hurt, humiliation and loss of dignity discussed – conduct sufficiently egregious as to justify 100 per cent reduction in remedies for contributory conduct – Held, challenge succeeds, no remedies payable, order of stay discharged.