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

  10. [2013] NZEmpC 199 Sealord Group Ltd v Pickering [PDF, 44 KB]

    Sealord Group Ltd v Pickering [2013] NZEmpC 199 [Interlocutory Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 4 November 2013] APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE STATEMENT OF CLAIM OUT OF TIME – Statement of claim filed one day out of time due to calculation error – Counsel for plaintiff cannot be faulted for not raising issue of timeliness with counsel for defendant on filing date – Requirement of timeliness can only be waived by the Court, not counsel – Satisfied in the interests of justice that leave be granted – Delay minor and result of inadvertent error on part of defendant’s counsel – No suggestion that plaintiff has been prejudiced by delay – Application granted
  11. [2013] NZEmpC 197 Electrical Union 2001 Inc and Anor v Mighty River Power [PDF, 239 KB]

    Electrical Union 2001 Inc v Mighty River Power [2013] NZEmpC 197 [Judgment of Chief Judge Colgan, 24 October 2013] INTERPRETATION OF COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT – Whether random drug and alcohol testing policy implemented by the defendant is in breach of provisions of collective agreement – Whether agreement should be interpreted to promote health and safety obligations arising under agreement – Health and safety provisions in agreement cannot override or contradict other provisions in agreement – Safeguards on drug and alcohol testing were implemented to ensure that health and safety objectives were not pursued at the expense of rights and liberties of employees – Whether random testing policy inconsistent with privacy clause in agreement – Requirement that testing be conducted on a “case by case basis” means employee consent is required before samples taken – Whether random urine testing constitutes “medical treatment” for purposes of s 11 NZBORA – Bodily samples taken for evidential purpos…
  12. [2013] NZEmpC 196 Labour Inspector MBIE v Civic City Ltd [PDF, 94 KB]

    Labour Inspector, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Civic City Ltd [2013] NZEmpC 196 [Judgment of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 23 October 2013] APPLICATION FOR FREEZING ORDERS – Respondents ordered to pay applicants over $200,000 by Authority in respect of breaches of employment legislation – Concern respondents may be liquidating assets to move out of country – Freezing order sought – Requirements for freezing order met – Crown exempted under s 65ZC of the Public Finance Act from giving an undertaking as to damages – Application granted – Orders to expire on 4 November 2013
  13. [2013] NZEmpC 194 Harris v TSNZ Pulp & Paper Maintenance Ltd [PDF, 76 KB]

    Harris v TSNZ Pulp & Paper Maintenance Ltd [2013] NZEmpC 194 [Interlocutory Judgment of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 21 October 2013] APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO ADDUCE FURTHER EVIDENCE – Section 189(2) Employment Relations Act 2000 – Sections 8, 98 Evidence Act 2006 – In trial plaintiff gave, without notice, evidence of alleged oral pre-contractual representations made by representative of the defendant – Defendant claims to be unfairly disadvantaged in not adducing evidence from the representative during hearing – Ends of justice served from receiving additional evidence – Failure of defendant to adduce evidence at hearing cannot be held against it – Plaintiff also entitled to call or recall witness or witnesses to rebut defendant’s intended evidence – Impracticable for issue to be resolved through affidavits – Examination of witnesses will need to be heard in Court – Application granted
  14. [2013] NZEmpC 195 Harrisons Fine Art Ltd v Carrothers [PDF, 65 KB]

    Harrisons Fine Art Ltd v Carrothers [2013] NZEmpC 195 [Interlocutory Judgment of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 21 October 2013] APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS – Defendant seeks $7000 security from plaintiff – Interests of justice require that plaintiff give security for costs – Justified by combination of unusual factors – Plaintiff company is insolvent – Unlikely to meet even a modest award of costs if unsuccessful – Defendant is legally aided – Consideration required as to whether Crown funds should be expended on fruitless exercise of recovering costs from plaintiff if unsuccessful – Refusal of plaintiff to take part in Authority investigation – Indicates an indifference to the proceedings and its consequences – Application granted
  15. [2013] NZEmpC 192 Gupta v Infosys Technologies (Australia) Pty Ltd [PDF, 113 KB]

    Gupta v Infosys Technologies (Australia) Pty Ltd [2013] NZEmpC 192 [Judgment of Judge Ford, 18 October 2013] APPLICATION FOR STRIKE OUT – Challenge filed by plaintiff in respect of determination of the Authority declining interim reinstatement – No challenge filed in respect of substantive determination – Plaintiff seeks substantive relief from Court – Court has no jurisdiction to order substantive relief on challenge to Authority determination relating to interim relief – Plaintiff’s claim so hopeless it cannot possibly succeed – Extension of time to file amended statement of claim only likely to prolong difficulties for plaintiff’s counsel – Application granted.
  16. [2013] NZEmpC 193 Rainbow Falls Organic Farm Ltd v Rockell [PDF, 61 KB]

    Rainbow Falls Organic Farm Ltd v Rockell [2013] NZEmpC 193 [Interlocutory Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 18 October 2013] APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION – Award of wage arrears made to defendant by Authority – Sums not paid by plaintiff – Concerns as to ability to recover from defendant if challenge successful – Defendant willing to agree to stay if money paid into Court – Dispute as to amount to be paid into Court – Overall interests of justice require stay be granted – Plaintiff to pay $20,000 into Court within 14 days – Application granted.
  22. [2013] NZEmpC 184 Hutchison v Nelson City Council [PDF, 662 KB]

    Hutchison v Nelson City Council [2013] NZEmpC 184 [Judgment of Judge AA Couch, 2 October 2013] APPLCIATION FOR LEAVE TO RAISE PERSONAL GRIEVANCE OUT OF TIME – Whether delay occasioned by exceptional circumstances – Plaintiff made reasonable arrangements with legal representative to raise personal grievance on her behalf – Not unreasonable for plaintiff to place trust in representative despite concerns over lack of response – Representative unreasonably failed to raise grievance within time – Failure to address concerns of opposing counsel despite ample time to do so – Just in all the circumstances that leave be granted.
  23. [2013] NZEmpC 183 Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Ltd [PDF, 100 KB]

    Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Ltd [2013] NZEmpC 183 [Interlocutory Judgment of Judge A D Ford, 1 October 2013] APPLICATION FOR ORDER ENTERING INTO JUDGMENT –  In March 2013 Court directed plaintiff to file amended statement of claim if it wished – Amended statement of claim filed – No amended statement of defence filed by defendant – Submitted that defendant accepted all allegations in pleadings – Necessary to file amended statement of defence only where fresh cause of action is introduced – Amended statement of claim discloses no new matters – Plaintiff only made inquiries three days prior to commencement of hearing – No prejudice suffered – Application refused.
  25. [2013] NZEmpC 179 George v Auckland Council [PDF, 267 KB]

    George v Auckland Council [2013] NZEmpC 179 [Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 27 September 2013] UNJUSTIFIABLE DISMISSAL – No evidence of bias or disparity of treatment on part of defendants – Fact that alternatives were open to defendants does not mean it was not entitled to commence informal disciplinary process – Dishonesty during disciplinary process capable of giving rise to dismissal – Unnecessary to conduct separate disciplinary process in respect of dishonesty allegations – Defendant had adequate basis to commence investigation into allegations –  Plaintiff given full notice of these concerns – Unlikely that heightened standards apply in disciplinary processes involving senior managers – No evidence defendant breached contractual obligations of good faith – Open to defendant to find that plaintiff had committed serious misconduct – Dismissal is what a fair and reasonable employer would have done in the circumstances – Claim dismissed BREACH OF CONTRACT – No evidence that bre…