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 10  DQJ v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue [PDF, 267 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 10  DQJ v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue (Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 28 January 2025) INTERIM REINSTATEMENT - serious question to be tried that dismissal was unjustifiable - serious question to be tried for permanent reinstatement - interpersonal issues with coworkers – recently diagnosed complex post traumatic stress disorder from serious and sustained domestic violence - balance of convenience favours interim reinstatement only to the payroll.

  2. [2025] NZEmpC 7 LMN v STC [PDF, 199 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 7 LMN v STC (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge MS King, 24 January 2025) INTERIM NON-PUBLICATION ORDER – SECURITY FOR COSTS – EXTENSION OF TIME – AMENDED STATEMENT OF DEFENCE – plaintiff’s personal circumstances sufficient to displace principle of open justice – interim non-publication order granted – security for costs granted – risk of security for costs preventing plaintiff from pursuing challenge – extension of time granted to file amended statement of defence out of time

  3. [2025] NZEmpC 8  Berryman v Fonterra Cooperative Group Limited [PDF, 155 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 8  Berryman v Fonterra Cooperative Group Limited (Interlocutory Judgment (No 2) of Judge MS King, 24 January 2025) ADMISSION OF FURTHER EVIDENCE – application to admit further evidence after close of applicant’s case – Court has jurisdiction to make orders sought – applicant failed to adequately explain why evidence was not produced at earlier stage – impact on judicial resources of admitting evidence – evidence of limited relevance to central issue in proceeding

  4. [2025] NZEmpC 3 Singh v McKee [PDF, 210 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 3 Singh v McKee (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge MS King, 21 January 2025) OBJECTION TO DISCLOSURE – CHALLENGE TO OBJECTION – RELEVANCE – wage and time records of other employees relevant to claims for arrears of wages – emails to accountant relevant to claims for arrears of wages – communications with business advisors not relevant to proceedings in light of pleadings – confidentiality issues can be resolved by appropriate directions – documents disclosed may only be used for purposes of proceeding – redactions of irrelevant information permitted

  5. [2025] NZEmpC 2 Young v Port of Tauranga Ltd [PDF, 236 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 2 Young v Port of Tauranga Ltd (judgment of Judge JC Holden, 17 January 2024) CHALLENGE – DISMISSAL – COVID-19 – COMPULSORY VACCINATION – EXEMPTIONS – plaintiff was employed as a tug engineer – Government made compulsory vaccination order – defendant determined that plaintiff was required to be vaccinated under government order – plaintiff was dismissed after defendant followed a process – plaintiff was an affected person who was required to be vaccinated – plaintiff did not have a valid exemption – defendant fairly did not seek exemption for plaintiff – defendant not required to undertake risk assessment – defendant fairly considered whether role could be modified – defendant’s redeployment offer was fair – any disadvantage and loss to plaintiff would have been limited due to subsequent circumstances – plaintiff’s challenge unsuccessful.

  6. [2025] NZEmpC 1 Byrne v Coverstaff Recruitment Group Ltd [PDF, 198 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 1 Byrne v Coverstaff Recruitment Group Ltd [interlocutory judgment No 2 of Judge Kathryn Beck,15 January 2025] GOOD FAITH REPORT – EXTENT OF HEARING – DIRECTIONS – plaintiff filed de novo challenge to Authority determination – directions limiting nature and extent of challenge to non de novo challenge – remedies for unjustified dismissal – quantum of penalties for breaches of employment agreement – claim for unlawful deduction – plaintiff to comply with timetabling orders – plaintiff’s conduct will attract liability for costs

  7. [2024] NZEmpC 253 Johnston v Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand [PDF, 233 KB]

    [2024] NZEmpC 253 Johnston v Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand (Judgment of Judge Beck, 18 December 2024) REMOVAL – SPECIAL LEAVE – DISMISSAL – NOTIFICATION TO PROFESSIONAL BODY – GOOD FAITH OBLIGATIONS – IMMUNITY PROVISIONS – HEALTH PRACTITIONERS – employer made notification about employee under Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 – notification led to employee’s registration being suspended – employee’s suspension led to their dismissal – employee claims that dismissal was predetermined from point of notification – whether employer required to act in good faith when making notification – whether employer protected by immunity provisions in Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act – important questions surrounding employer’s obligations when notifying professional bodies – important questions surrounding notification processes being strategically utilised to avoid employment law obligations – questions important and likely to arise other than incidentally – removal…

  8. [2024] NZEmpC 251 The Chief of New Zealand Defence Force v NZ PSA Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi [PDF, 263 KB]

    [2024] NZEmpC 251 The Chief of New Zealand Defence Force v NZ PSA Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi (Judgment of the full Court, 16 December 2024) COLLECTIVE BARGAINING - PROHIBITED PREFERENCE - terms and conditions should be considered as a whole to determine whether prohibited preference - no preference in the circumstances - PASSING ON - remuneration was passed on to non-union employees - passing on was with the intention of undermining collective agreement but did not have that effect - no breach of good faith.

  9. [2024] NZEmpC 250 High Performance Sport New Zealand Ltd v The Athletes Cooperative Inc [PDF, 289 KB]

    [2024] NZEmpC 250 High Performance Sport New Zealand Ltd v The Athletes Cooperative Inc (Judgment of the full Court, 16 December 2024) CHALLENGE – COLLECTIVE BARGAINING – INITIATION OF BARGAINING – VALIDITY OF BARGAINING NOTICE – DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEE – UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES – defendant union representing elite athletes seeks to initiate collective bargaining with plaintiff – plaintiff does not employee athletes but does employ other employees – union can only initiate collective bargaining where in an employment relationship with employer – union only in an employment relationship with employer where nexus or relationship exists between union and employer – members of union must be employees of employer for union to initiate bargaining – union members seeking employment can be employees for the purposes of initiating collective bargaining where they are not strangers to the employer in contractual terms – plaintiff does not deal with members of union directly – plaint…

  10. [2024] NZEmpC 248 Secretary for Education v Public Service Association [PDF, 456 KB]

    [2024] NZEmpC 248  Secretary for Education v Public Service Association (Judgment of Judge JC Holden, 13 December 2024 ( COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT – CONTRACT INTERPRETATION – whether wording required parties to agree on options for surplus staff – whether “case by case” meant on an individual basis – when viewed in context the PSA and Ministry must meet to attempt to agree on options available to surplus staff but, if agreement not reached, Ministry retains the ability to end employment at end of specified notice period – in context “case by case” here refers to restructuring process by restructuring process

  11. [2024] NZEmpC 247 Courage & Ors v Attorney-General & Ors and EMPC 85/2022 Pilgrim & Ors v Attorney-General & Ors [PDF, 235 KB]

    [2024] NZEmpC 247 Courage & Ors v Attorney-General & Ors and EMPC 85/2022 Pilgrim & Ors v Attorney-General & Ors (Interlocutory Judgment (No 16) and (No 37) of Chief Judge Inglis, 12 December 2024) APPLICATION FOR STRIKE-OUT - JURISDICTION - Employment Court does not have express or implied jurisdiction to hear claim for breach of statutory duty - Employment Relations Authority does not have jurisdiction for tort - Employment Court has exclusive jurisdiction for judicial review - claim can be reformulated as an application for judicial review - time given for plaintiffs to file amended statement of claim/s.

  12. [2024] NZEmpC 246 NHL v The Priory in New Zealand of The Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem judgment redacted [PDF, 171 KB]

    [2024] NZEmpC 246 NHL v The Priory in New Zealand of The Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem judgment redacted (Judgment of  Judge J C Holden, 11 December 2024) INTERIM NON-PUBLICATION – CHALLENGE – challenge to Authority determination declining to order interim non-publication – publication may undermine health of plaintiff – publication may impact on plaintiff’s ability to perform role – insufficient evidence that publication will undermine future employment prospects of plaintiff – publication could lead to disclosure of private personal information – non-publication ordered with exceptions for employer – employer permitted to communicate about matter with staff for benefit of plaintiff – employer permitted to speak about the matter if acting as a referee for the plaintiff