Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Police v Vunileva - complaint based on disqualifying conviction with further charges pending - COA cancelled.

Objections to valuation of property - Rating Valuations Act 1998, s 36 - Valuations agreed to by consent - No costs order.

[2025] NZEmpC 70 [2025] NZEmpC 70 Carrington Resort Jade LP v Maheno (Costs judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 4 April 2025) COSTS – INCREASED COSTS – increased scale costs awarded following matter being struck out

[2025] NZEmpC 61 Faitala and Vea v The Pacific Island Business Development Trust (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge M S King, 1 April 2025) SECURITY FOR COSTS – risk that second plaintiff will be unable to meet any possible adverse costs award – merits insufficiently certain to be relevant – an order of security will prevent second plaintiff from pursuing challenge – defendant will incur costs irrespective of whether second plaintiff is a party to proceedings – premature to assess whether costs will be dealt with on a joint and several basis – no order for security awarded

[2025] NZEmpC 56 Secretary for Education v Public Service Association (Judgment of Judge Holden, 24 March 2025) COSTS – application opposed on basis that proceedings concerned a poorly drafted collective agreement and there was broader benefit in resolving dispute – parties previously agreed to scale costs – costs awarded with modest reduction to recognise nature of proceedings

Objections to valuations by Council – Rating Valuations Act 1998 – Valuation agreed by consent – No costs order.

[2025] NZEmpC 52  ADO v Joan Fernie Charitable Trust Board (Consent judgment of Judge Beck, 20 March 2025) CONSENT – proceedings settled and discontinued – no issue as to costs – permanent non-publication orders made

[2025] NZEmpC 47 NYF Ltd v Zhang (Judgment of Judge M King, 17 March 2025) DE NOVO CHALLENGE – COSTS – defendant partially successful in Authority and entitled to costs but on a reduced basis – insufficient information provided about settlement offers – parties both responsible for complexity of proceedings – second plaintiff not entitled to costs because their involvement in the proceedings was a result of their failures to provide employment agreement to defendant – engagement letter signed by defendant with representative is vague – defendant’s representative did not make submissions on meaning of engagement letter – reduction necessary as a result of terms of engagement letter – defendant’s representative cautioned from seeking to recover further costs from defendant – defendant’s representative encouraged to obtain legal advice on terms of engagement letter

Objections to valuations by Council – Rating Valuations Act 1998, s 36 – Valuation agreed by consent – No costs order.

Professional practice / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s442 / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1, cl2e, cl14, cl17a, cl17b, cl17c, cl18a, cl18b, cl26aiii, cl26b, cl26d / HELD / adviser permitted unlicensed agent to perform work required to be undertaken by licensed adviser (‘rubber stamping’) / breaches of cl1, cl2e / failed to provide evidence of being licensed / breach of cl14 / failed to provide professional standards and complaints procedure / breaches of cl17a, cl17b, cl17c / failed to provide copy of visa application prior to lodgement / breach of cl1 / failed to provide service agreement, major departure from expected standard: Tian v TA [2024] NZDC 2759 / breach of cl18a / failure to maintain and provide complete file / breach of cl26aiii / filing system not well-managed / breach of cl26d / failed to advise of lodgement of application / breach of cl26b / no evidence of dishonesty / alternative charges of negligence dismissed / complaint partially upheld / sanctions to follow

Objection to valuation by Council - Ratings Valuations Act 1998, s36 - Valuation agreed by consent – No costs order.

[2025] NZEmpC 29 Carrington Resort Jade LP v Graham (Interlocutory Judgment (No 2) of Judge M S King, 26 February 2025)  STRIKE-OUT – DISMISSAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION – plaintiff failed to comply with security for costs order – plaintiff no longer engaging with Court on proceedings – inordinate and inexcusable delay – delay has caused prejudice to defendant – proceedings have caused defendant stress – risk that costs of defence will render defendant’s success in Authority nugatory – challenge to be struck out if security for costs not paid within 14 days

[2025] NZEmpC 25 Hurrell v Menopaws Ltd t/a Number 8 Café (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge KG Smith, 21 February 2025) APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS – absence of evidence of plaintiff’s inability to pay – application not granted