Judgments of note 2025

[2025] NZEmpC 91 LDJ v EZC ( [PDF, 280 KB]Interlocutory Judgment (No 2) of Judge Beck, 9 May 2025) LITIGATION GUARDIAN – CAPACITY – SUFFICIENT INSTRUCTIONS – counsel raised concerns about whether plaintiff has capacity to give sufficient instructions – medical and other evidence indicates that plaintiff is able to understand issues – medical and other evidence establishes that plaintiff is unable to properly exercise sound judgement and reasoning in relation to issues – plaintiff not able to give sufficient instructions – plaintiff is incapacitated – litigation guardian appointed – no conditions placed on appointment

[2025] NZEmpC 74 Locke v Rishworth Aviation Asia Pacific Limited [PDF, 161 KB] (Interlocutory judgment (No 2) of Judge Beck, 10 April 2025) APPEARANCE UNDER PROTEST – APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE APPEARANCE – JURISDICTION – FORUM NON CONVENIENS – plaintiff has applied to join foreign airline – foreign airline served in New Zealand – foreign airline appeared under protest to jurisdiction – application to set aside appearance under protest – Court has jurisdiction to hear application as foreign airline served in New Zealand – proper process to challenge forum is to apply for a stay or strike out – appearance under protest set aside

[2025] NZEmpC 69 Bread of Life Christian Church in Auckland v Chen [PDF, 463 KB] (Judgment of Judge Beck, 4 April 2025) STATUS OF WORKER – MINISTER OF RELIGION – IDENTITY OF EMPLOYER – LOST REMUNERATION – REINSTATEMENT – minister of religion became senior pastor of church – trust board of church split and dismissed minister – Authority ordered reinstatement – trust board dismissed minister again for redundancy – dispute over control of trust board being resolved in High Court – starting point to consider parties’ mutual rights and obligations – religious organisations differ from each other – there is no presumption against minister of religion intending to be legally bound – the Court is reluctant to resolve doctrinal disputes – the spiritual nature of a role is not determinative but is relevant – parties intended to be legally bound – parties’ relationship transcended but did not exclude legal relationship – parties’ intended for relationship to be employment relationship – no relevant industry practice apart from practices of church – parties’ relationship akin to the relationship of CEO of charitable organisation and their board – trust exercised considerable control over minister – minister fully integrated into life of church – minister not in business on his own account – minister was employee – all of church’s legal responsibilities handled by the trust – committees responsibility for minister’s employment derived power from the trust – committees responsible for minister’s employment devolved into the trust prior to the dispute arising – the trust took on the role of administering the relationship between the minister and the church – minister was employed by trust – first dismissal unjustified as fixed term agreement unlawful and unfair process followed – second dismissal unjustified as redundancy not justified and unfair process followed – lost remuneration awarded to minister from date of first dismissal – due to uncertainties about control of trust, not certain that relationship with trust irreparable – significant portion of church supports minister – minister has continued in role without pay even though dismissed – trust at least partially responsible for breakdown in relationship – possibility that parties could resolve or manage differences if all parties made a reasonable effort with assistance from third parties – insufficient evidence that church cannot afford minister – risk that declining reinstatement would incentivise unlawful behaviour – reinstatement ordered – parties ordered to arrange a mediation with a third party present within 28 days of date of judgment to resolve outstanding issues

[2025] NZEmpC 5 Harte v MERAS [PDF, 337 KB] (Interlocutory (No 2) Judgment of Judge Corkill, 24 January 2025) Court has power to order compensatory relief under s 189 of the ERA, because in this proceeding there is a right to a remedy in respect of a cause of action founded on s161(1)(f). The controversy between the parties is not excluded under s161(1)(r)(r). Preliminary question answered accordingly

This page was last updated: 14th May 2025