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

3610 items matching your search terms

  1. [2013] NZEmpC 167 Lewis v JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. [PDF, 56 KB]

    Lewis v JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. [2013] NZEmpC 167 [Interlocutory Judgment No 2 of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 5 September 2013] Recall of judgment – [2013] NZEmpC 167 – Recall to be made only where in interests of justice – Deletion of paras [4]-[5] containing several disputed allegations against plaintiff – Amendment of para [109] ordering disclosure of documents to reflect earlier deletion – Judgment reissued in all other respects unchanged.
  2. [2013] NZEmpC 166 Catering Masters NZ Ltd v Anand [PDF, 63 KB]

    Catering Masters NZ Ltd v Anand [2013] NZEmpC 166 [Costs Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 5 September 2013]  Costs – Employment Relations Act – Clause 19, sch 3 – Defendant entitled to costs contribution of $5,500 in the Court and $1,500 in the Authority – Uplift in costs refused – Failure of plaintiff to attend judicial settlement conference not appropriate reason for uplift as process is voluntary – No inferences to be drawn against plaintiff’s motivation for challenge.
  4. [2013] NZEmpC 165 Matsuoka v LSG Sky Chefs NZ Ltd [PDF, 185 KB]

    Matsuoka v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [2013] NZEmpC 165 [Interlocutory Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 4 September 2013] Objection to disclosure – Employment Court Regulations 2000 – Reg 39(2) – Whether party seeking penalty can rely upon privilege of non-disclosure – Statutory provisions of Act cannot be fettered or read down by 2000 Regulations – Regs 40 to 52 do not apply to either party where penalty is sought – Court preserves discretion pursuant to ss 189 and 221(d) to order disclosure where in overall interests of justice – Plaintiff not subject to penalty – No basis for non-disclosure put forward by defendant – Disclosure ordered.
  7. [2013] NZEmpC 162 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [PDF, 139 KB]

    Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [2013] NZEmpC 162 [Interlocutory judgment of Judge A D Ford, 3 September 2003] Application for stay of proceedings –Employment Court Regulations – Reg 64 – Authority Member refused request for recusal – Plaintiff seeks challenge to determination in Court – Stay sought on substantive Authority investigation – Investigation set for late September 2013 – Member to retire October 2013 –Defendant likely prejudiced by stay as Member’s retirement would require appointment of new Member to hear case resulting in costs and inconvenience – Stay would effectively grant plaintiff desired outcome without merits of substantive challenge being assessed – Allegations of bias and pre-determination not of sufficient novelty or public interest to warrant stay – Application dismissed.
  8. [2013] NZEmpC 160 Dr X v a District Health Board [PDF, 74 KB]

    Dr X v A District Health Board [2013] NZEmpC 160 [Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis in relation to Application for Permanent Non-Publication Orders, 2 September 2013] Application for non-publication order – Employment Relations Act  – sch 3, cl 12(1) – Medical professional – Permanent order issued in Authority – Court required to make independent assessment – Interests of applicant relevant to exercise of Court’s discretion,  including potential damage to reputation – Parties had settled employment relationship difficulties without Court intervention – Principles of open justice therefore apply with diluted force – Concerns of public safety to be weighed against Medical Council’s finding of no wrongdoing – Disclosure of plaintiff’s identity unnecessary for public education – Overall interests of justice require granting of permanent non-publication order.
  11. [2013] NZEmpC 158 Gapuzan v Pratt & Whitney Air New Zealand Services t/a Christchurch Engine Centre [PDF, 102 KB]

    Gapuzan v Pratt & Whitney Air New Zealand Services t/a Christchurch Engine Centre [2013] NZEmpC 158 [Interlocutory Judgment of Judge A A Couch, 29 August 2013] Successful application by the defendant for striking out of second amended statement of claim, and unsuccessful application for security for costs.  Parts of statement of claim seeking remedy under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 and s 17 of the Limitation Act 2010 are struck out for lack of jurisdiction.   No order for security for costs is made as the plaintiff has demonstrated his willingness to meet a significant order for payment from the Authority in the past and, despite his residence in Australia, the enforcement of judgments remains possible.  Costs reserved. 
  12. [2013] NZCA 400 CA215/2013 Mayne v Nuplex Specialties NZ Ltd [PDF, 86 KB]

    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT, 27 August 2013. Application for leave to appeal is denied. The question of law as formulated by the appellant - whether the Court erred by reaching factual findings that were mistaken and unsustainable on the evidence - is not a question of law or of general importance. The alleged factual errors by the Court related to matters resolved by the Judge on the basis of evidence given in Court, and the application of authorities in the case were done so in a straightforward manner.  
  13. [2013] NZCA 398 CA141/2013 Vulcan Steel Ltd v Wonnocott [PDF, 238 KB]

    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT, 27 August 2013. Application for leave to appeal is denied. Despite some errors of fact, none are capable of reaching the threshold required in order for the judgment to be set aside. The question as to the relevancy of factors considered by the Chief Judge for determining implied consent is not of sufficient public importance to warrant granting leave, as the test to be applied in determining implied consent is ultimately one of fact and degree.