Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

[2022] NZEmpC 153 Pilgrim v Attorney-General (Interlocutory Judgment (No 11) of Judge B A Corkill, 24 August 2022) REVOCATION OF INTERIM NON-PUBLICATION ORDER – consent.

[2022] NZEmpC 151 Kang v Saena Company Ltd (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 23 August 2022) PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – UNJUSTIFIABLE DISMISSAL – employees reasonably understood that they were dismissed – employee should have been provided with individual employment agreement – dismissal was unjustifiable - employee was not disadvantaged by lack of individual employment agreement – remedies awarded for unjustifiable dismissal.

[2022] NZEmpC 149 Halse v Employment Relations Authority (Judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 18 August 2022) APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT JUDICIAL REVIEW – premature at this stage to say directions are not judicially reviewable – application is an abuse of process - judicial review of removal determination has no reasonably arguable cause of action – judicial review would be vexatious if not struck out for other grounds - application granted.

[2022] NZEmpC 147 Pilgrim v Attorney-General (Interlocutory Judgment (No 8) of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 18 August 2022) APPLICATION FOR IN-COURT MEDIA COVERAGE - application not opposed - matter is of significant public interest - application granted.

[2022] NZEmpC 145 Pilgrim v Attorney-General (Interlocutory Judgment (No 6) of Judge B A Corkill, 18 August 2022) APPLICATION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - relevance - scandalous - prejudicial - hearsay - opinion - whether evidence might undermine criminal proceedings and fair trial rights - relevance of evidence best determined after all evidence has been heard - scandalous nature of evidence is insufficient by itself to justify exclusion - application partially granted as per schedule.

[2022] NZEmpC 143 Lawton v Steel Pencil Holdings Ltd (in liq) (Costs Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 15 August 2022) COSTS – GUIDELINE SCALE – uplift awarded because of rejected Calderbank offer.

[2022] NZEmpC 141 E Tū Inc and ors v Carter Holt Harvey LVL Ltd (Judgment of the Full Court, 15 August 2022) MATTER REMOVED FROM EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY – Holidays Act 2003, ss 18 and 19 – annual holidays directed to be taken during COVID-19 Alert Level 4 lockdown – whether “unable to reach agreement” – no attempt to engage with individual plaintiffs or union –  cannot say defendant was unable to reach agreement – section 19(1)(a) Holidays Act did not apply – STANDING – E Tū may represent members concerning individual rights but that does not extend to bringing present proceeding in its own name – union does not have standing.

[2022] NZEmpC 139 Zhang v Panda Restaurant Ltd (Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 9 August 2022) APPLICATION FOR FREEZING ORDER – good arguable case established for premium and breach of statutory entitlements – assets in the jurisdiction with risk of dissipation – application granted.

[2022] NZEmpC 137 AlKazaz v Enterprise IT Ltd (Interlocutory Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 2 August 2022) APPLICATION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – application declined.

[2022] NZEmpC 135 Singh v Dhaliwal (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 2 August 2022) NON-COMPLIANCE – PENALTY – Sections 137 and 140 Employments Relations Act 2000 – compliance order of the Authority not complied with – fine – penalty awarded.

[2022] NZEmpC 133 Solander Maritime Ltd v Munro (Interlocutory Judgment (No 4) of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 29 July 2022) APPLICATION FOR CONTINUATION AND VARIATION OF FREEZING ORDER - consent.

[2022] NZEmpC 131 Farrand Orchards Ltd v Tane (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 27 July 2022) PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – NON-DE NOVO CHALLENGE - 90-day trial period – parties did not agree on a 90-day trial period when employment was initially offered – employee did not notice the 90-day trial period in the employment agreement and it was not pointed out to him – work began before execution of written employment agreement containing 90-day trial period – estoppel claim was not raised in the Authority and cannot be subject of non-de novo challenge – trial period was invalid – challenge dismissed.