Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

[2013] NZEmpC 4 Dalley v Norrell Building Ltd. Successful challenge to Authority determination. The Court held that the plaintiff was unjustifiably dismissed, but assessed his contribution to the dismissal at one third. Plaintiff awarded $2,670 as reimbursement for lost wages, with 5% interest and $4,000 compensation pursuant to s 123(1)(c)(i). The Court declined to award a penalty for failing to provide the plaintiff with a written employment agreement as required by s 63A(2) of the Act. Costs reserved.

30.01.13 | Judge Spencer, Judge Ambler, Judge Reeves | Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, sections 58, 79 | Costs

25.01.2013 | Chief Judge Isaac | Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, section 79 | Costs

Decision Date: 23 January 2013. Charges laid under s 91 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008

21.01.13 | Judge Spencer, Judge Ambler, Judge Reeves | Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, sections 58, 79 | Costs

Decision Date: 18 December 2012. Charges laid under s 91 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008

McDonald v Peters [2012] NZWHT Auckland 51 costs decision TRI 2009-101-000025/DBH 2635. Decision date 3 December 2012. See also the McDonald v Peters [2012] NZWHT Auckland 39 final determination.

Costs decision date: 23 November 2012. Privacy Act 1993.

Contract / quantum meruit / faulty medicines / Respondent faxed 900 New Zealand pharmacies including Applicant instructing recall of a suspected faulty medication / same recall between another pharmacy and Respondent decided in District Court / Ian Johnson Pharmacy Ltd v GlaxoSmithKline NZ Ltd DC Manukau, CIV-2010-092-1947, 26 September 2011 / Applicant claimed for its time and costs spent effecting the recall / Held: District Court decision acted as a precedent for this claim / Applicant entitled to payment for services in contract or alternatively on quantum meruit basis / fax sent to Applicant constituted a contract and services requested were over and above those normally provided / Applicant was entitled to reasonable payment for its services / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $253.00.

Zagorski v Wilkinson Building and Construction Limited [2012] NZWHT Auckland 47 costs decision TRI 2010-100-000112/DBH 6291. Decision date 15 November 2012. See also the Zagorski v Wilkinson Building and Construction Limited [2012] NZWHT Auckland 4 final determination, Zagorski v Wilkinson Building and Construction Limited [2012] NZWHT Auckland 38 decision on remedial scope, Zagorski v Wilkinson Building and Construction Limited [2012] NZWHT Auckland 43 decision on quantum, High Court Zagorski v Wilkinson Building and Construction Limited [2012] NZWHT Auckland 43 appeal decision CIV-2012-404-1123, and Zagorski v Wilkinson Building and Construction Limited [2012] NZWHT Auckland 49 amended costs decision.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT, 30 October 2012. CA judgment setting aside the decisions of the Employment Court and Employment Relations Authority in this matter. The Court of Appeal was satisfied that the Employment Court was in error in concluding there was an onus on the employee to establish the pay her or she would otherwise received on the day in question. Rather, the onus fell on the employer to meet the statutory obligation to pay the minimum entitlement on the day in question. The Court concluded that interpreted in accordance with the purpose of the Act, s 9 required the employer first to establish or attempt to establish the amount of unrostered overtime that would otherwise have been received by the employee under s 9(1)(b)(ii). If that were not possible, then the employer was obliged to apply the averaging formula under s 9(3). The respondent is ordered to pay one set of costs to the appellants as for a standard appeal on a band A basis with usual disbursements.

17.10.12 | Judge Savage, Judge Milroy, Judge Coxhead | Te Ture Wheneua Māori Act 1993, sections 58, 79 | Costs