Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a bike online from Respondent which developed fault / stand-off between parties as to who should pay for freight to return bike to Respondent / Applicant eventually sent the bike to Respondent which discovered and repaired minor wiring fault / Applicant claimed $1,790.96 for refund of the bike, courier costs and compensation / Held: Applicant did not give Respondent opportunity to examine the bike and to repair and therefore did not have right to reject the bike / bike failed to meet guarantee of acceptable quality and Applicant is entitled to freight cost as it is cost reasonably foreseeable / Respondent liable for cost of freighting bike back to Applicant / Applicant’s claims for other consequential losses dismissed / supplier cannot contract out of Consumer Guarantees Act / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to freight bike back to Applicant and pay $90.

2015 Social Security Appeal Authority decisions made in 2015 [2015] NZSSAA 001, February 13 Appeal against a decision to establish and recover overpayments of Domestic Purposes Benefit, Accommodation Supplement, Disability Allowance and Training Incentive Allowance. The debts were established on the basis that the appellant had been living in a relationship in the nature of marriage. Appeal dismissed. [2015] NZSSAA 002, February 13 Appeal against a decision to establish and recover overpayments of Domestic Purposes Benefit and Sole Parent Support paid to the appellant. Appeal dismissed. [2015] NZSSAA 047, July 6 Appeal against a decision of the Chief Executive upheld by a Benefits Review Committee declining to include payments for a Tread Climber as a disability cost in the assessment of the appellant’s Disability Allowance and/or Temporary Additional Support. Appeal allowed. [2015] NZSSAA 03, February 13 Appeal against a decision to decline applications for Unsupported Child’s Ben…

Appeal against decision to reduce the amount of Accommodation Supplement paid to the appellant and suspend and cancel the payment of Special Benefit. The issues in this case are: (i) how the appellant’s accommodation costs should be assessed; and (ii) whether discretion should be exercised to pay him Special Benefit. The appeal as it relates to the calculation of entitlement to Accommodation Supplement is allowed. The appeal as it relates to the payment of Special Benefit is allowed. In all other respects the appeal as it relates to Special Benefit is dismissed.

Decision Date: 16 April 2015. Charges laid under s 91 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008

Wills v Goodman Fielder NZ Ltd costs, judgment of Judge B Corkill

Decision Date: 10 April 2015. Charges laid under s 91 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008

Appeal against a decision to decline an advance payment of benefit to meet the cost of course fees. Appeal dismissed.

[2015] NZEmpC 34 Rodkiss v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd (Judgment of Judge A D Ford, 24 March 2015) CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - COSTS –claim for constructive dismissal – cross challenge on disadvantage grievances and cost award. Breach of duty by employer – resignation foreseeable consequence - constructive dismissal upheld.

Appeal against a decision to establish and recover an overpayment of Supported Living Payment. The overpayment occurred as a result of a mistake made by Centrelink and a decision by Centrelink to review the appellant’s entitlement to the Disability Support Pension. The appeal is allowed in part. Costs are reserved.

Stevens v Hapag-Lloyd (NZ) Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 28 (Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 12 March 2015) UNJUSTIFIABLE DISMISSAL – COSTS CROSS-CHALLENGE – restructuring and redeployment – plaintiff sought redundancy – redeployment option not accepted  - meaning of ‘reasonable’ alternative explored – plaintiff unsuccessful - weight to be given to Calderbank offer made in Authority – hardship not found – defendant successful.

Appeal in relation to a decision on the payment of Invalid’s Benefit following the appellant's departure from New Zealand. Application for costs dismissed.

  Negligence / contributory negligence / car collision / Applicant and Respondent collided as Respondent entered motorway / Applicant’s insurer claimed against Respondent for insured loss / Held: Applicant had right-of-way when Respondent collided with his vehicle / Respondent failed to enter motorway from on-ramp with due care / damage to Applicant’s vehicle and lengths taken by Applicant to locate independent witness added weight to Applicant’s version of events / no evidence of contributory negligence / costs claimed were actual, reasonable and consistent with nature of impact / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $5,656.61  

Decision date: 19 February 2015. Human Rights Act 1993.