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

3630 items matching your search terms

  1. [2022] NZEmpC 201 Young v Port of Tauranga Ltd [PDF, 216 KB]

    [2022] NZEmpC 201 Young v Port of Tauranga Ltd (Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 9 November 2022) INTERIM REINSTATEMENT – serious issue to be tried on unjustifiable dismissal – no vacant position to reinstate employee into – employee’s post-termination conduct was “extreme” – permanent reinstatement not seriously arguable – balance of convenience and interests of justice point against reinstatement – interim reinstatement not ordered.

  2. [2022] NZEmpC 200 Stewart v AFFCO New Zealand Ltd [PDF, 309 KB]

    [2022] NZEmpC 200 Stewart v AFFCO New Zealand Ltd (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 8 November 2022) AVAILABILITY PROVISION – UNJUSTIFIABLE DISADVANTAGE – availability provision was included in employment agreement – employee was disadvantaged by existence of the clause regardless of whether it was strictly enforced – parties to resolve remedies – personal grievance was raised within time, as limitation period started when employee learned that the availability provision was invalid – remedies start from the date of availability provision being signed – Employment Court has jurisdiction to consider a quantum meruit claim.

  3. [2022] NZEmpC 194 Enterprise Motor Group (New Lynn) Ltd v A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [PDF, 267 KB]

    [2022] NZEmpC 194 Enterprise Motor Group (New Lynn) Ltd v A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 26 October 2022) MINIMUM STANDARDS – minimum wage compliance when employees are paid by commission – case distinguishable from impermissible averaging cases – employees payments complied with minimum wage – improvement notices are limited by wage and time record obligations – improvement notice varied.

  4. [2022] NZEmpC 192 E Tū Inc v Rasier Operations BV [PDF, 483 KB]

    [2022] NZEmpC 192 E Tū Inc v Rasier Operations BV (Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 25 October 2022) APPLICATION FOR DECLARATION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS - applicants were drivers for Uber - whether defendants are mere facilitators of marketplace or employers - defendants exercise significant control over drivers - drivers cannot realistically be said to run their own businesses - IDENTITY OF EMPLOYER - defendants are sufficiently connected to constitute joint employer - application granted.

  5. [2022] NZEmpC 190 Te Whatu Ora – Health New Zealand v Culturesafe NZ Ltd (in liq) [PDF, 252 KB]

    [2022] NZEmpC 190 Te Whatu Ora – Health New Zealand v Culturesafe NZ Ltd (in liq) (Interlocutory Judgment (No 5) of Judge B A Corkill, 25 October 2022) PROTEST TO JURISDICTION - whether proceedings removed were a "matter" under s 187 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 - broad meaning must be given to the term "matter" - Court has jurisdiction after matter was properly removed - protest to jurisdiction dismissed.

  6. [2022] NZEmpC 184 Straayer v Employment Relations Authority [PDF, 329 KB]

    [2022] NZEmpC 184 Straayer v Employment Relations Authority (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 17 October 2022) APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS - Employment Relations Act contains only one path for judicial review applications - judicial review is only available after Authority has published substantive determination that has been challenged - Authority has not published determination - judicial review cannot succeed - application for strike-out granted.

  7. [2022] NZEmpC 183 Butt v Attorney-General [PDF, 372 KB]

    [2022] NZEmpC 183 Butt v Attorney-General (Judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 12 October 2022) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT – MISREPRESENTATION – CANCELLATION – plaintiff sought to cancel settlement agreement for misrepresentation – defendant made misrepresentation to plaintiff – plaintiff relied on misrepresentation – plaintiff induced by representation to sign agreement – parties did not explicitly or implicitly agree that the truth of the representation was essential – misrepresentation substantially reduced the benefit of the contract to the plaintiff – plaintiff entitled to cancel contract – plaintiff entitled to proceed with claim.