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

3638 items matching your search terms

  1. [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
  4. [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
  5. [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
  8. [2025] NZEmpC 34  Xu v Pioneer Education and Immigration Services Group Ltd [PDF, 313 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 34  Xu v Pioneer Education and Immigration Services Group Ltd (Judgment of Judge Beck, 4 March 2025) CHALLENGE – NON DE NOVO – REMEDIES – MITIGATION – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Authority found plaintiff was unjustifiably dismissed – plaintiff challenges remedies awarded in Authority – plaintiff made reasonable attempts to mitigate loss – plaintiff was not offered alternative employment by company – plaintiff entitled to six months’ lost remuneration – no entitlement to full compensation – plaintiff entitled to job search and medical costs – plaintiff suffered moderately serious and reasonably long lasting harm – plaintiff awarded $35,000 compensation – no interest awarded on awards – challenge largely successful
  12. [2025] NZEmpC 29 Carrington Resort Jade LP v Graham [PDF, 159 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 29 Carrington Resort Jade LP v Graham (Interlocutory Judgment (No 2) of Judge M S King, 26 February 2025)  STRIKE-OUT – DISMISSAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION – plaintiff failed to comply with security for costs order – plaintiff no longer engaging with Court on proceedings – inordinate and inexcusable delay – delay has caused prejudice to defendant – proceedings have caused defendant stress – risk that costs of defence will render defendant’s success in Authority nugatory – challenge to be struck out if security for costs not paid within 14 days
  13. [2025] NZEmpC 28 IDEA Services Ltd v Wills [PDF, 328 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 28 IDEA Services Ltd v Wills (Judgment of Judge Beck, 24 February 2025) NON DE NOVO CHALLENGE – DISMISSAL PROCEDURE – REMEDIES – MITIGATION – VACCINATION – COVID-19 – employee performed administrative role – government COVID-19 vaccination mandate prevented employee from performing role in office – employer unwilling to allow employee to work at home – employee dismissed after not being vaccinated by deadline even though employer indicated further consultation would follow – employer justified in not allowing employee to perform role from home – dismissal substantively justified – employer required to consult on availability of roles for redeployment when considering whether to dismiss employee – employer failed to meet with employee after committing to do so – employer failed to provide information or engage about working from home – employer failed to consult with employee as individual employee – dismissal process insufficiently urgent to justify not consulting – emplo…
  14. [2025] NZEmpC 26 Carrington Resort Jade LP v Toni Maheno [PDF, 172 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 26 Carrington Resort Jade LP v Toni Maheno (Interlocutory judgment (No 4) of Judge Beck, 21 February 2025) STRIKE OUT – DISMISSAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION – plaintiff has repeatedly failed to comply with timetabling orders of Court – plaintiff exhibited similar behaviour in Authority proceedings – hearing unable to be set down due to plaintiff not filing briefs of evidence – the delay caused in these proceedings is inordinate and inexcusable – the delay has caused serious prejudice to the defendant – further delay may render defendant’s success in the Authority illusory – challenge struck out  
  17. [2025] NZEmpC 24 Cunningham v healthAlliance NZ [PDF, 157 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 24 Cunningham v healthAlliance NZ (Judgment of Judge M S King, 20 February 2025) VERIFICATION ORDER – COMPLIANCE ORDER – applicant for verification order unsatisfied with disclosure – respondent appears to have misinterpreted notice requiring disclosure – probable existence of further documents – application for verification order granted – compliance order sought for unpaid costs award – costs award unpaid – breach of award likely to continue – compliance order granted with interest
  18. [2025] NZEmpC 22 Menzies v Corrigan [PDF, 205 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 22 Menzies v Corrigan (Interlocutory judgment of Judge K Beck, 19 February 2025) STAY OF EXECUTION – Authority made compliance orders against plaintiff to place liquidated company in a position to meet its obligations – challenge may be rendered ineffectual if no stay is granted – some novel and important issues for resolution – merits of challenge are not straightforward – money paid into Court will preserve position of parties – stay granted on condition of sums being paid into Court
  21. [2025] NZEmpC 19 Postal Workers Union of Aotearoa Inc v NZ Post Ltd [PDF, 218 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 19 Postal Workers Union of Aotearoa Inc v NZ Post Ltd  (Interlocutory (No 2) Judgment of Judge KG Smith, 14 February 2025) APPLICATION FOR STAY – APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT – SIMILAR PROCEEDINGS ON APPEAL – SECOND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION – unsuccessful second application for stay of proceedings – Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal in unrelated proceedings that also involve s 6 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 – parties entitled to expect a scheduled hearing to proceed – cases not completely comparable – law on s 6 not presently demonstrably uncertain – Supreme Court’s decision may lead to appeal, but both parties indicated an appeal is likely in any case – stay would cause significant delay – hearing likely not possible before first quarter of 2026
  23. [2025] NZEmpC 17 VGM v JXC [PDF, 150 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 17 VGM v JXC (Consent Interlocutory Judgment (No 3) of Judge M S King, 13 February 2025) APPLICATION TO VARY OR RESCIND DECISION OF COURT – STAY OF EXECUCTION – Court previously declined application for stay of execution – successful application to vary or rescind previous stay decision – material change in circumstances – prospect of negotiated settlement – parties consent to stay – stay ordered with money to be paid into Court
  24. [2025] NZEmpC 16 The Chief of New Zealand Defence Force v Williams [PDF, 305 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 16 The Chief of New Zealand Defence Force v Williams (Judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 10 February 2025) AVAILABILITY PROVISIONS – REASONABLE REMUNERATION – ON-CALL – OVERTIME – employment agreements required employees to work such hours as reasonably necessary including outside of core hours – employees required to accept overtime work when required by employer – employees were required to be on call 24/7 until directed otherwise – performance of work conditional on employer making that work available – employment agreements contained availability provision –  availability provisions did not provide for the payment of reasonable compensation – parties directed to negotiate remaining issues