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 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.

  2. [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.

  3. [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.

  4. [2015] NZEmpC 126 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [PDF, 127 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 126 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd - (Interlocutory Judgment (No 15) of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 29 July 2015) APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT DEFENCE – ALTERNATIVE APPLICATION TO APPOINT COMPUTER FORENSIC SPECIALIST - misconduct alleged through defendant's solicitor improperly discharging disclosure obligations – lack of evidence in support – alternative application previously addressed – case for revisiting not established – both applications dismissed.

  5. [2015] NZEmpC 127 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [PDF, 333 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 127 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd - (Interlocutory Judgment (No 16) of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 29 July 2015) PRIVILEGE – litigation privilege defined and distinguished from lawyer-client privilege – litigation privilege expires at end of litigation unless other proceedings closely related – analysis of documents for which privilege claimed – documents must be sufficiently identified to enable informed objection.

  6. [2015] NZEmpC 121 Morgan Schofield v Transit Coachlines Ltd [PDF, 110 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 121 Morgan Schofield v Transit Coachlines Ltd (Judgment of Judge A D Ford, 28 July 2015) REMOVAL TO COURT FROM AUTHORITY ON QUESTION OF LAW – Whether or not the plaintiffs met the requirements of completing 12 months continuous employment to entitle them to annual leave under s 16(2) of the Holidays Act 2003 – whether school holidays were periods of “unpaid leave” – definition of “leave” and “unpaid leave” considered – Held, plaintiffs satisfied criteria of completing 12 months continuous employment and were entitled to annual leave – costs to lie where they fall

  7. [2015] NZEmpC 122 Campbell v The Commissioner of Salford School [PDF, 631 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 122 Campbell v The Commissioner of Salford School (Judgment of Judge Corkill, 27 July 2015)  DE NOVO CHALLENGE – UNJUSTIFIED SUSPENSION - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - whether suspension and dismissal were justified ––procedural and substantive flaws found - lack of specificity in claims against plaintiff- inadequate opportunity for plaintiff to be heard –– confidential information relied upon in investigation – terms of reference were too broad – no heed paid to earlier recommendations for urgent implementation of performance objectives – nonadherence to collective agreement in that distinction between performance and conduct issues not identified or considered – Held, disadvantage grievances established – compensation and costs awarded - reinstatement not reasonable or practical.

  8. [2015] NZEmpC 120 G L Freeman Holdings Ltd v Livingston [PDF, 113 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 120 G L Freeman Holdings Ltd v Livingston (Judgment of Judge A A Couch, 24 July 2015) DE NOVO CHALLENGE - Employee resigned without giving the full stipulated period of notice required under contract – employer withheld final pay as a result - whether provision of agreement relied upon by employer in order to withhold money from employee was enforceable in law – whether that provision should be seen as liquidated damages for breach of contract or as a penalty - whether employee should be penalised for neglecting to give required notice period – if so, what amount – Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company principles considered – regard given to intention of parties at time agreement was entered into – no monetary loss suffered as result of failure to give full notice period – forfeiture clause was to compel employee to give requisite notice by holding threat of loss of wages over employee and as such was held to be penalty provision which in good conscience and equity the Court ough…