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

  21. [2014] NZEmpC 40 Dumolo v Lakes District Health Board [PDF, 157 KB]

    [2014] NZEmpC 40 Dumolo v Lakes District Health Board [Judgment of Judge Perkins, 14 March 2014] CHALLENGE TO AUTHORITY DETERMINATION – Plaintiff dismissed for serious misconduct – Serious misconduct related to the removal of organisational property, namely, a DVD disc, for plaintiff’s own personal use - Dismissal occurred on 14 May 2010 and therefore prior to amendment to s 103A Act – Test is what a fair and reasonable employer “would” have done in all the circumstances – On balance, a fair and reasonable employer would have taken disciplinary action short of dismissal – Held dismissal unjustifiable – Remedies reduced under s 124 for plaintiff’s contributory conduct – Cross challenge concerned Authority’s costs determination – Held in appropriate cases representation by in-house counsel, advocates or employees will not necessarily preclude award of costs – But in view of findings in this case the Authority’s costs determination should not be disturbed -  Costs reserved.
  22. [2014] NZEmpC 37 Puna Chambers Ltd v Christensen [PDF, 53 KB]

    [2014] NZEmpC 37 Puna Chambers Inc (formerly The Montessori Foundation) v Christensen [Costs Judgment of Judge Inglis, 14 March 2014] COSTS – Defendant seeks full costs against plaintiff after successful strike out application – No invoices provided in support of application – Costs of $3,629.00 would be reasonable – Indemnity costs not appropriate – Discount in costs not warranted – Plaintiff is ordered to pay defendant $2,500.00 as contribution toward costs.
  23. [2014] NZEmpC 43 Booth v Big Kahuna Holdings Limited Interlocutory [PDF, 110 KB]

    [2014] NZEmpC 43 Booth v Big Kahuna Holdings Ltd [Interlocutory Judgment (No 2) of Judge Inglis, 14 March 2014] STAY AND SECURITY FOR COSTS – Defendant filed application for security for costs and stay of proceedings - Plaintiff filed application for stay of execution of Authority’s costs determination – Court disagrees with exceptionality principle in relation to ordering security for costs – Court must assess both threshold tests under r 5.45 of the High Court Rules and have regard to any other relevant factors – Cannot reasonably be inferred that plaintiff will be unable to pay costs if awarded against him – Security for costs would not be just in the particular circumstances – If plaintiff required to meet Authority's costs award then it is unlikely that he would be able to proceed with challenge – Order for stay granted on condition that plaintiff pay $5,250 into Court within 32 days -  Order for security for costs and stay dismissed – Application for stay of Authority’s costs det…
  24. [2014] NZEmpC 44 Fox v Hereworth School Trust Board No3 interlocutory [PDF, 74 KB]

    [2014] NZEmpC 44 Fox v Hereworth Trust School Board [Interlocutory Judgment (No 4) of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 14 March 2014] DISCLOSURE – Assessment of relevance of documents ordered to be filed into Court in [2014] NZEmpC 33 – Documents in relation non-party’s correspondence with Police consequent upon plaintiff’s complaint are relevant to proceedings – Documents in relation to plaintiff’s second complaint to Police concerning home surveillance not relevant– Documents held by non-party covering both complaints to be disclosed
  25. [2014] NZEmpC 42 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [PDF, 70 KB]

    [2014] NZEmpC 42 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs Ltd [Interlocutory Judgment of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 14 March 2014] STAY OF EXECUTION – Applicant applies for stay of execution on costs determination of Authority – $21,000 costs awarded against applicant – Respondent seeks to enforce award by bankruptcy notice – Unable to do so as applicant now resides in Australia – Bankruptcy would significantly affect applicant’s ability to bring challenge – Plaintiff unlikely to be injuriously affected by stay given size – Challenge raises potentially novel issues under pt 6A of the Act – Cannot be said that stay only affects challenge to costs award and not substantive challenge – Overall interests of justice favour applicant – Stay granted conditional on applicant paying $10,500 into the Court