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

3648 items matching your search terms

  1. [2025] NZEmpC 64 Sharma v Rodney Farm 'N' Machinery Ltd [PDF, 216 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 64 Sharma v Rodney Farm 'N' Machinery Ltd (Judgment of Judge Holden 1 April 2025) PENALTIES – unlawful wage deduction and failure to keep proper records – not of a nature or seriousness to justify penalties – KIWISAVER CONTRIBUTIONS – ordered – UNJUSTIFIABLE DISADVANTAGE – responsibility of employer to ensure appropriate safety gear is available – grievance made out and Authority award upheld – CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL – raised within 90 days – no sufficiently serious repudiatory conduct – lacking causative link between conduct and resignation – grievance not made out.

  2. [2025] NZEmpC 61 Faitala and Vea v The Pacific Island Business Development Trust [PDF, 178 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 61 Faitala and Vea v The Pacific Island Business Development Trust (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge M S King, 1 April 2025) SECURITY FOR COSTS – risk that second plaintiff will be unable to meet any possible adverse costs award – merits insufficiently certain to be relevant – an order of security will prevent second plaintiff from pursuing challenge – defendant will incur costs irrespective of whether second plaintiff is a party to proceedings – premature to assess whether costs will be dealt with on a joint and several basis – no order for security awarded

  3. [2025] NZEmpC 60 Courage & Ors-Pilgrim & Ors v Attorney-General & Ors [PDF, 201 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 60 Courage & Ors-Pilgrim & Ors v Attorney-General & Ors (Interlocutory Judgment of Chief Judge Inglis, 1 April 2025) APPLICATION FOR STAY - Court has exclusive jurisdiction for judicial review of Labour Inspector - position will not change on appeal - while judicial review may be unnecessary depending on result of appeal, the plaintiffs wish to proceed with judicial review - balance of convenience points against stay - application declined

  4. [2025] NZEmpC 59 healthAlliance NZ Limited v Cunningham [PDF, 157 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 59 healthAlliance NZ Limited v Cunningham (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge M S King, 26 March 2025) URGENCY – APPLICATION FOR SANCTIONS – COMPLIANCE – application for urgency in respect of application for sanctions following breach of compliance order – Court does not have jurisdiction to issue all sanctions sought – both parties have failed to comply with orders of the Court – not necessary to order urgency

  5. [2025] NZEmpC 50  Scott's Brewing Limited v Scott [PDF, 200 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 50  Scott's Brewing Limited v Scott (Judgment of Judge J C Holden 18 March 2025) APPLICATION FOR STAY – defendant and children would be adversely impacted by a stay – no detriment to applicant if declined – APPLICATION FOR NON-PUBLICATION – adverse consequences of publication not sufficiently identified – Authority’s determination already widely disseminated – APPLICATION FOR URGENCY – urgency unnecessary but proceedings to be dealt with expeditiously in light of interim reinstatement – all applications unsuccessful.

  6. [2025] NZEmpC 48 Brown v The Clinician Holdings Ltd [PDF, 287 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 48 Brown v The Clinician Holdings Ltd (Judgment of Judge King, 17 March 2025) APPLICATION FOR DECLARATION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS – worker performed part-time role as CFO for company under contractor agreement – parties negotiated for worker to work for TCHL on full-time basis as CFO – agreement provided worker would report to company’s CEO – parties agreed that worker would be paid $200,000 per year – parties discussed worker obtaining shareholding with company which induced worker, at least in part, to accept new arrangement – worker no longer permitted to sub-contract under new agreement – parties agreed that worker would wind down other contracting arrangements – new agreement superseded previous contractor agreement – parties never put their agreement into writing – worker continued to invoice company as no written agreement had been finalised – worker no longer sub-contracted work for company – worker continued to perform some work for other clients – worker was entitl…

  7. [2025] NZEmpC 47 NYF Ltd v Zhang [PDF, 196 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 47 NYF Ltd v Zhang (Judgment of Judge M King, 17 March 2025) DE NOVO CHALLENGE – COSTS – defendant partially successful in Authority and entitled to costs but on a reduced basis – insufficient information provided about settlement offers – parties both responsible for complexity of proceedings – second plaintiff not entitled to costs because their involvement in the proceedings was a result of their failures to provide employment agreement to defendant – engagement letter signed by defendant with representative is vague – defendant’s representative did not make submissions on meaning of engagement letter – reduction necessary as a result of terms of engagement letter – defendant’s representative cautioned from seeking to recover further costs from defendant – defendant’s representative encouraged to obtain legal advice on terms of engagement letter

  8. [2025] NZEmpC 46 LMN v STC [PDF, 173 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 46 LMN v STC (Interlocutory judgment (No 2) of Judge M King, 17 March 2025) EXTENSION OF TIME – SECURITY FOR COSTS – LEAVE TO FILE FURTHER SUBMISSIONS – UNLESS ORDERS – STRIKE-OUT – successful application for extension of time to pay security for costs order – timetabling orders set for payment of security for costs – proceedings not yet set down – unnecessary to grant leave to file further submissions – application for unless orders to strike out proceedings premature

  9. [2025] NZEmpC 45 FAJ v GEK & HIL [PDF, 201 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 45 FAJ v GEK & HIL (Judgment of Chief Judge Inglis, 14 March 2024) APPLICATION FOR FREEZING ORDER - urgency - application made without notice - good arguable case established for misuse of company funds - evidence of dishonest activity gives rise to risk of dissipation - interests of justice point to granting application - application granted - APPLICATION FOR ANCILLARY ORDERS - application appropriate in the interests of justice - application granted

  10. [2025] NZEmpC 44 Mutonhori v Wairoa District Council [PDF, 276 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 44 Mutonhori v Wairoa District Council (Judgment of Judge Holden, 14 March 2025) CATCHWORDS UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – removal of urgent duties appropriate in light of employee’s continued defiance – suspension due to adverse impacts on colleagues -- opportunity to respond provided – disadvantage justified – numerous substantial issues with employee’s behaviour – ample opportunities for employee to respond – dismissal justified

  11. [2025] NZEmpC 42 Soundhomes NZ Ltd v Doughty [PDF, 245 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 42 Soundhomes NZ Ltd v Doughty (Judgment (No 8) of Judge Beck, 13 March 2025) FREEZING ORDER – ANCILLARY ORDERS – VARIATION – EXTENSION – risk of dissipation of assets due to conduct of respondents – further information still required – parties dispute meaning of original freezing order – extent of order clarified – limited further ancillary orders made – freezing orders not to remain in place indefinitely – date for review set down

  12. [2025] NZEmpC 36 Wilson Parking v Turner & Anor [PDF, 205 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 36 Wilson Parking v Turner & Anor (Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis 11 March 2025) SEARCH ORDER – applicant has strong prima facie case – evidence that respondent used confidential information to his advantage – evidence that respondent acted in breach of restraint of trade provisions – serious risk of harm if search orders not granted – evidence that relevant material is held by respondent – real possibility of evidence being destroyed or made unavailable for use in evidence – search orders made

  13. [2025] NZEmpC 39 Alexander v Thorn [PDF, 185 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 39 Alexander v Thorn (Judgment of Judge M S King, 11 March 2025)EXTENSION OF TIME – NON DE NOVO CHALLENGE – GOOD FAITH – NON-PUBLICATION – order prohibiting search of court file due to irrelevant and potentially prejudicial information on Court file – no non-publication order made – both parties filed applications for leave to file a non de novo challenge out of time – no satisfactory explanation of lengthy delays – risk parties not wishing to pursue proceedings in good faith – merits of one issue strong for one party, but Authority likely not bound by finding for purposes of substantive investigation – both applications for extension of time unsuccessful