Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Police v Parker complaint - COA expired while remanded in custody on serious charges - Complaint closed as no longer a certificate holder - complaint will become an objection to any new application. 

Objections to valuations by Council – Land Valuation Proceedings Act 1948, s 19(8)(b) – Valuation agreed by consent – No costs order.

Police v Hina - Complaint based on gang membership and firearms charges - no longer suitable to be a certificate holder - COA cancelled.

Professional practice / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s442 / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1, cl2e, cl14, cl18a, cl18b, cl22 and cl26b / HELD / adviser permitted anonymous unlicensed agent to perform work required to be undertaken by licensed adviser (‘rubber stamping’) / breach of cl2e / provided written agreement to Authority / unaware that complainant had not personally signed supporting document / however, failed to provide opportunity to review application / partial breach of cl1 / late provision of evidence of licence insufficient / breach of cl14 / failed to provide written agreement / breach of cl18a / failed to all explain significant matters / breach of cl18b / no relevant written communications / no breach of cl26iii / failure to provide on-going timely updates / breach of cl26b / obligation to confirm in writing material discussions did not arise / no breach of cl26c / alternative charges of negligence dismissed / complaint partially upheld / sanctions to follow

[2025] NZEmpC 12 Haven Falls Funeral Home Limited v Tepania (Costs Judgment of Judge M King, 5 February 2025) COSTS – DISCONTINUANCE – COSTS ON COSTS – scale costs awarded on discontinuance of claim – costs on costs also

Funeral Grant - appeal against the Ministry of Social Development's decision not to include the cost of kai (food) in a funeral grant.  Whether the cost of kai can be recognised as a “reasonable funeral expense” within the context of a funeral grant. The costs associated with kai in this appeal were an integral part of the tangihanga process and a reasonable funeral expense.  Accordingly, the Ministry’s decision to exclude the cost of kai from the funeral grant was incorrect.  Outcome: appeal allowed.

Objections to valuations by Council – Land Valuation Proceedings Act 1948, s 19(8(b) – Valuation agreed by consent – No costs order.

[2025] NZEmpC 7 LMN v STC (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge MS King, 24 January 2025) INTERIM NON-PUBLICATION ORDER – SECURITY FOR COSTS – EXTENSION OF TIME – AMENDED STATEMENT OF DEFENCE – plaintiff’s personal circumstances sufficient to displace principle of open justice – interim non-publication order granted – security for costs granted – risk of security for costs preventing plaintiff from pursuing challenge – extension of time granted to file amended statement of defence out of time

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicants purchased racehorse from Respondent / Applicants experienced problems with poor behaviour from racehorse / Applicants asked to return racehorse and claimed full refund plus other costs / Held: Respondent made an innocent misrepresentation by saying racehorse was suitable for eventing / Racehorse had back condition and was not suitable for equestrian eventing / Applicant can claim for compensation / Racehorse cannot be returned / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $27,390.00 / Claim allowed.

Appeal challenging the Corporation's decision to decline cover and suspend entitlements - ss 20, 26, and 117(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the evidence supported that the appellant suffered a personal injury. Held: The appellant suffered a personal injury (lumbar disc injury with radiculopathy). Consequently, the Corporation's decision to decline cover was incorrect, and the suspension decision falls away. Outcome: The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is entitled to reasonable costs and disbursements.

Claims for costs on appeal. Outcome: Respondent ordered to pay Appellant $5,513.35, $2,234.70 in costs and disbursements of $3,278.65. 

Liability / misconduct and incompetent or seriously negligent real estate work charges against licensee, managing director and agency arising from imbalances in VPA account balances / Real Estate Agents Act 2008, s3, s50, s72, s73b, s73c, s s85, s86, s110 / Professional Rules 2012, r5.1, r6.1, r6.3, r8.3, r8.4, r9.13 and r10.6c / HELD / licensee’s practice of ticking “no refund” without confirmation reckless / licensee liable for reckless contravention per s73b / director and agency did not have appropriate checks and balances to control VPA funds / numerous failings seen as systemic failure to reconcile VPA / properly characterised as negligence / director and agency liable per s73b / license failed to adequately particularise marketing and advertising costs / unsatisfactory conduct per s72a / director and agency’s failure to supervise licensee’s handling of VPA inadequate / director and agency liable for misconduct per s73b / penalty decision to follow