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

3418 items matching your search terms

  1. [2020] NZEmpC 109 McCook v Chief Executive of the Inland Revenue Department [PDF, 333 KB]

    [2020] NZEmpC 109 McCook v Chief Executive of the Inland Revenue Department (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 27 July 2020) CHALLENGE TO OBJECTION AS TO DISCLOSURE – objections to documents were on grounds of relevance, confidentiality, and oppressiveness – confidential documents to be disclosed only to counsel – some documents irrelevant – while search of documents may be difficult, materials should be disclosed - APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS AS TO REPRESENTATION – plaintiffs apply to represent 36 other persons – inquiry will be fact-specific – insufficient commonality of interest -  representative approach is not justified.

  2. [2020] NZEmpC 99 Assoc of Professionals and Executive Employees Inc v Counties Manukau District Health Board [PDF, 299 KB]

    [2020] NZEmpC 99 Assoc of Professionals and Executive Employees Inc v Counties Manukau District Health Board (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 6 July 2020) CONTRACTUAL INTERPRETATION – SICK LEAVE – part-time employees contractually entitled to “pro rata” sick leave of 10 days per year – whether pro rata means proportion of days or proportion of hours – employer’s initial practice to proportion by hours indicates parties’ intention – apportioning by hours leads to fairer outcomes – correct approach is to apportion by hours.

  3. [2020] NZEmpC 88 123 Casino Ltd t/a 123 Palm Bar & Restaurant & Function Centre v Zuo [PDF, 266 KB]

    [2020] NZEmpC 88 123 Casino Ltd t/a 123 Palm Bar & Restaurant & Function Centre v Zuo (Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 19 June 2020) UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – employee was a permanent member of staff and not a casual employee – employee refused to work until paid wage arrears – employee did not cancel employment agreement or abandon employment – employee was dismissed unjustifiably – Authority’s remedies and penalty awards were correct.