[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.
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.
3640 items matching your search terms
-
[2022] NZEmpC 192 E Tū Inc v Rasier Operations BV [PDF, 483 KB] -
[2022] NZEmpC 193 Bowen v Bank of New Zealand [PDF, 143 KB] [2022] NZEmpC 193 Bowen v Bank of New Zealand (Interlocutory Judgment (No 2) of Judge J C Holden, 25 October 2022) APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO ADDUCE FURTHER EVIDENCE – further evidence allowed in the interests of justice.
-
[2022] NZEmpC 192 E Tū Inc v Rasier Operations BV (Media Release) [PDF, 181 KB] [2022] NZEmpC 192 E Tū Inc v Rasier Operations BV (Media Release)
-
[2022] NZEmpC 191 McDermott v Employment Relations Authority [PDF, 172 KB] [2022] NZEmpC 191 McDermott v Employment Relations Authority (Costs Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 25 October 2022) COSTS – GUIDELINE SCALE – statements about financial circumstances were not supported by evidence – costs awarded.
-
[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.
-
[2022] NZEmpC 189 Carver v Metallic Sweeping (1998) Ltd [PDF, 184 KB] [2022] NZEmpC 189 Carver v Metallic Sweeping (1998) Ltd (Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 21 October 2022) APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT – statement of claim does not comply with regulations and fails to adequately inform defendant – statement of claims struck out.
-
[2022] NZEmpC 188 Atlas Concrete Ltd v Cleland [PDF, 136 KB] [2022] NZEmpC 188 Atlas Concrete Ltd v Cleland (Consent Judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 21 October 2022) CONSENT.
-
[2022] NZEmpC 187 Singh v Johnstone [PDF, 136 KB] [2022] NZEmpC 187 Singh v Johnstone (Consent Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 21 October 2022) CONSENT.
-
[2022] NZEmpC 186 Teddy and Friends Ltd v Page [PDF, 177 KB] [2022] NZEmpC 186 Teddy and Friends Ltd v Page (Costs Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 17 October 2022) COSTS – GUIDELINE SCALE – unreasonable costs settlement offers made by successful party – costs awarded based on guideline scale – costs awarded on filing costs memorandum.
-
[2022] NZEmpC 185 McPherson v Oji Fibre Solutions (NZ) Ltd [PDF, 270 KB] [2022] NZEmpC 185 McPherson v Oji Fibre Solutions (NZ) Ltd (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 17 October 2022) APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO REMOVE PROCEEDINGS – proceedings involve similar or related issues to proceedings already before the Court – important legal issue will arise other than incidentally – no compelling reason to decline leave – application granted.
-
[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.
-
[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.
-
[2022] NZEmpC 182 Wright v Southern Cross Healthcare Ltd [PDF, 112 KB] [2022] NZEmpC 182 Wright v Southern Cross Healthcare Ltd (Consent Judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 10 October 2022) CONSENT.
-
[2022] NZEmpC 181 NZEC Management Ltd v McKnight [PDF, 141 KB] [2022] NZEmpC 181 NZEC Management Ltd v McKnight (Consent Judgment of Judge Judge Kathryn Beck, 3 October 2022) CONSENT.
-
[2022] NZEmpC 180 Malcolm v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [PDF, 193 KB] [2022] NZEmpC 180 Malcolm v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections (Costs Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 29 September 2022) COSTS – GUIDELINE SCALE – no further step was taken to obtain judgment without appearance – costs awarded with reduction.
-
[2022] NZEmpC 179 Sky Stone Consulting Ltd v Xu [PDF, 174 KB] [2022] NZEmpC 179 Sky Stone Consulting Ltd v Xu (Interlocutory Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 27 September 2022) APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS – APPLICATION FOR STAY – applicant is in strained financial circumstances – interests of justice weigh in favour of granting security for costs – proceedings stayed until security for costs is paid.
-
[2022] NZEmpC 178 UXK v Talent Propeller Ltd [PDF, 228 KB] [2022] NZEmpC 178 UXK v Talent Propeller Ltd (Costs Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 27 September 2022) APPLICATION FOR COSTS - LEGAL AID - legally aided party was the successful party - scale costs not applied in legal aid context - costs awarded for legal aid invoices actually rendered with some deductions.
-
[2022] NZEmpC 177 Shah Enterprise IT Ltd v A Labour Inspector [PDF, 240 KB] [2022] NZEmpC 177 Shah Enterprise IT Ltd v A Labour Inspector of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 23 September 2022) MINIMUM STANDARDS – employee is owed minimum wages and holiday pay – company director was person involved in minimum wage and holiday pay breaches – company director is liable if company fails to pay amounts owing – PENALTIES – Preet and statutory factors considered – $19,200 in penalties awarded against company - $9,600 in penalties awarded against director.
-
[2022] NZEmpC 176 Drivesure Ltd v McQuillan [PDF, 191 KB] [2022] NZEmpC 176 Drivesure Ltd v McQuillan (Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 22 September 2022) PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – REDUNDANCY – restructuring process was rushed during COVID-19 lockdown – employees did not have reasonable time to consider restructuring proposal and take advice – redundancy was unjustifiable – Authority remedies upheld.
-
[2022] NZEmpC 175 Invacare New Zealand Ltd v Pyne [PDF, 193 KB] [2022] NZEmpC 175 Invacare New Zealand Ltd v Pyne (Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 22 September 2022) APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE A CROSS-CHALLENGE – delay was lengthy – interests of justice point against allowing leave – application declined.
-
[2022] NZEmpC 174 Ashby v NIWA Vessel Management Ltd [PDF, 279 KB] [2022] NZEmpC 174 Ashby v NIWA Vessel Management Ltd (Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 21 September 2022) NON-DE NOVO CHALLENGE - REMEDIES - but for personal grievance employee may have remained with employer for some time - 12 months' lost wages awarded - evidence suggested that dismissal had a significant mental impact - compensation awarded at top end of Band 2 - employee was not blameworthy in grievance - no reduction made for contribution.
-
[2022] NZEmpC 173 Zhang v Panda Restaurant Ltd [PDF, 156 KB] [2022] NZEmpC 173 Zhang v Panda Restaurant Ltd (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 21 September 2022) APPOINTMENT FOR SUBSTITUTED SERVICE – respondent is evading service using traditional means – using email as an alternative is appropriate – application granted.
-
[2022] NZEmpC 172 Pilgrim v Attorney-General [PDF, 164 KB] [2022] NZEmpC 172 Pilgrim v Attorney-General (Interlocutory Judgment (No 18) of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 21 September 2022) APPLICATION TO ACCESS COURT DOCUMENTS.
-
[2022] NZEmpC 171 Alkazaz v Deloitte (No. 3) Ltd [PDF, 356 KB] [2022] NZEmpC 171 Alkazaz v Deloitte (No. 3) Ltd (Judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 15 September 2022) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT – no evidence of threat or illegitimate pressure to sign settlement agreement, nor of coercion or duress – settlement agreement not set aside – settlement agreement prevents new claims from being brought – employees made comments that breached settlement agreement – employees were not aware of the existence of the settlement agreement and their acts could not be imputed to the company – settlement agreement was not breached.
-
[2022] NZEmpC 170 Courage v Attorney-General [PDF, 207 KB] [2022] NZEmpC 170 Courage v Attorney-General (Interlocutory Judgment (No 13) of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 15 September 2022) APPLICATION TO ACCESS COURT DOCUMENTS - documents may be relevant in parallel proceedings - access is sought after substantive hearing - application declined.