Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Invalids Benefit & Supplementary Benefits – Overpayment due to appellant living in relationship of the nature of marriage. Outcome: appeal allowed, costs awarded against respondent in [2017] NZSSAA 063

[2017] NZEmpC 42 Matsuoka v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 28 April 2017) NON-PAYMENT OF NON-PARTIES’ RETRIEVAL AND STORAGE COSTS – expert evidence considered – cost for storage and retrieval of payroll information ordered.

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant contracted Respondent to deliver a dirt bike / Respondent did not have cartage insurance / bike was stolen off back of Respondent’s truck / Applicant claimed value/purchase price of bike / Applicant claimed Respondent negligent in leaving bike unsecured and unattended / Held: carriage of goods done at “limited carrier’s risk” / no written agreement / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2000.00

[2017] NZEmpC 36 The Free Range Egg & Poultry Co Ltd v Miller (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 31 March 2017) APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF ORDERS – stay principles applied – financial impact unsupported by evidence - application dismissed – defendant entitled to costs.

[2017] NZEmpC 35 Ahuja v Labour Inspector, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Interlocutory Judgment (No 2) of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 30 March 2017) CHALLENGE  – AUTHORITY AWARDED PENALTY OF ITS OWN MOTION – REPRESENTATION - whether Authority should appear when not a party to plaintiff’s challenge – whether independent counsel to be appointed – Labour Inspector not appropriate defendant in every case but appropriate  where party to challenge and willing participant – costs to be met out of public funds.

Negligence / Collision between Applicant’s and Respondent’s vehicles / Respondent was a driving instructor and the Second Respondent was driving his car as part of her driving lesson / Applicant and his insurer claim the cost of repairing the Applicant’s car of $3,883.78 / Respondent counterclaims the costs of repair to his car / Whether the parties reached a binding settlement agreement / Whether Second Respondent gave way / Whether Respondent negligent in failing to provide adequate supervision / Whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the Applicant / What sum should be paid between the parties / Held: Respondent offered to get Applicant’s car repaired / Applicant’s response did not constitute a binding settlement merely negotiations / Applicant was under no obligation to continue with the negotiations and was free to decide to proceed through his insurer / Respondent admitted negligence / Respondent was on the phone at the time of the crash / High level of respo…

[2017] NZEmpC 25 Ahuja v A Labour Inspector, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 9 March 2017) VARIATION OF TIMETABLING ORDERS – application for leave to extend time to comply with timetabling directions – interests of justice considered – extension granted – costs awarded against plaintiff.

[2017] NZEmpC 23 Domingo v Suon (Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 7 March 2017) COMPLIANCE ORDER – defendant failed to comply with Authority’s compliance order – whether Employment Court has jurisdiction to impose a sanction under s 140(6) where enforcement may be sought in District Court – set-off claim prohibited by minimum code statutes – jurisdiction found – defendant fined $11,000 – part-payment of  $6,600 to plaintiff – plaintiff entitled to costs.

Complaint / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / lawyer’s trust account obligations / firm has no trust account / overpayment of fees / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 3 / rule 9.3 / rule 9.6 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Trust Account) Regulations 2008 regulation 9 / regulation 10 / final invoice / fees in advance / delayed refund / issues not part of complaints / HELD / obliged to hold client monies in trust account / failed to advise on costs contribution / no final invoice / no finding on trust account issue / Committee’s decision otherwise confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

[2017] NZEmpC 18 Leota v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development (Costs Judgment of Judge M M E Perkins, 23 February, 2017) COSTS – consideration of ability to pay – costs reduced - $7,000 awarded against plaintiff.

[2017] NZEmpC 20 New World Market Ltd v Wang (Judgment of Judge M E Perkins as to Costs on Discontinuance, 23 February 2017) DISCONTINUANCE – plaintiff paid Authority awards in full through District Court proceeding – costs of discontinuance of $3,456 awarded to defendant.

Guarantee / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant enrolled in course of study and paid fees to Respondent institution / Applicant withdrew from course 11 days after its commencement / Applicant claimed he could not understand lecturer and lecturer’s teaching style was poor / enrolment form provided for a refund of fees if withdrawal was within 8 days of course commencing or there were exceptional circumstances / Applicant claimed reason for withdrawing was exceptional and Respondent failed its guarantee as to service provided / Applicant claimed refund of fees / Held: no failure of guarantee / inadequate evidence to prove failure / Respondent provided service with reasonable care and skill and service was fit for purpose / circumstances not exceptional / claim dismissed

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent which had serious engine issues & was uneconomic to repair / whether vehicle sold privately or ‘in trade’ / whether vehicle of acceptable quality & what, if any, remedies available / Held: Respondent sold several vehicles a year so ‘in trade’ / vehicle not of acceptable quality as not free from defects & reasonable consumer would not regard it as acceptable given price paid & statement it was in ‘mint condition’ / failure substantial so Applicant entitled to full refund as well as any foreseeable losses resulting from failure / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4839.88 & Applicant to make vehicle available for pick up within three weeks of amount being received / claim allowed