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

  18. [2013] NZEmpC 224 Lyttelton Port Co Ltd v Rail & Maritime Union [PDF, 118 KB]

    Lyttelton Port Co Ltd v Rail & Maritime Union [2013] NZEmpC 224 [Judgment of Judge AA Couch, 3 December 2013] INTERPRETATION OF COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT – Whether second defendants employed “at the Port of Lyttelton” pursuant to coverage clause – Second defendants employed at container handling facility owned by plaintiff 6 km away from Port – Starting point is normal meaning of clause – Preposition “at” used to designate precise location – Second defendant’s interpretation reliant on events subsequent to incorporation of coverage clause in predecessor agreements – Normal meaning of clause does not produce an absurd result or one inconsistent with business common sense – Had plaintiff not acquired cargo handling facility it would have continued to be operated by independent owners – Second defendants not employed “at the Port of Lyttelton” – Not covered by collective agreement – Challenge successful
  20. [2013] NZEmpC 223 Wallace & Cooper Ltd t/a Andar Holdings v Irvine [PDF, 72 KB]

    Wallace & Cooper Ltd t/a Andar Holdings v Irvine [2013] NZEmpC 223 [Costs Judgment of Judge AA Couch, 2 December 2013] COSTS – Whether defendant’s hours and charge out rate reasonably incurred – Time spent on attendances and hourly rates inversely proportional when assessing reasonableness based on skill and experience of practitioner – Defendant advocate’s charge out rates reasonable for junior legal practitioner – Costs incurred by defendant reasonable – Whether there should be uplift in costs on basis of plaintiff’s unreasonable conduct – Defendant’s conduct also unreasonable – No adjustment on two-thirds starting point to be made on this basis – Whether plaintiff’s refusal of Calderbank offer to be taken into account – Incidence of taxation not be taken into account when assessing offer – Offer unreasonably refused – Plaintiff to pay 90 percent of defendants costs for those incurred after offer was made – Plaintiff ordered to pay defendant $52,765 in costs
  21. [2013] NZEmpC 221 Bali v SRG Holdings Ltd [PDF, 79 KB]

    Bali v SRG Holdings Ltd [2013] NZEmpC 221 [Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 29 November 2013] APPLICATION FOR COMPLIANCE ORDERS – Expiry of plaintiff’s work permit – Employment terminated – Record of settlement reached between parties – Plaintiff to be re-offered employment provided immigration status could be resolved – Plaintiff fails to resolve immigration status – Defendant refuses plaintiff’s recommencement of employment – Plaintiff seeks compliance orders in respect of the record of settlement – Application declined by Authority – Plaintiff failed to take any steps to rectify immigration status– Defendants could not be expected to keep offer open indefinitely – Application refused
  23. [2013] NZEmpC 219 Fox v Hereworth School Trust Board [PDF, 78 KB]

    Fox v Hereworth School Trust Board [2013] NZEmpC 219 [Interlocutory Judgment of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 28 November 2013] APPLICATION FOR NON-PARTY DISCLOSURE – Disclosure objected to on grounds that documents sought provided to Ombudsman in connection with investigation – Whether privilege under s 26(3) Ombudsmen Act 1975 provides grounds for objection pursuant to public interest immunity under reg 44(3)(c) Employment Court Regulations 2000 – Public interest not injured by disclosure – Section 26(3) provides exemption for Ombudsmen from being prosecuted or sued in civil or criminal proceedings – Not a ground for resisting production of documents – Order that non-party disclose all documents relating to the litigation in his possession – Non-party to meet own costs of opposing application
  24. [2013] NZEmpC 218 Cross v Onerahi Hotel Ltd [PDF, 68 KB]

    Cross v Onerahi Hotel Ltd [2013] NZEmpC 218 [Oral Interlocutory Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 27 November 2013] APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT – Fixture set for 11 December – Difficulties for defendant’s witnesses in attending hearing – Necessary to consider interests of justice – Adjournment disruptive to other litigants waiting for fixture – Only one of defendant’s witnesses a key witness – Plaintiff entitled to have challenge dealt with in timely manner – Application declined.