Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

You are here: Home → Judgments of the Court

Judgments of the Court 2012

Judgments of the Court 2012

  • Judgments of the Employment Court from 1 July 2006 are available below. Earlier decisions may be obtained from a commercial supplier - Brookers Ltd or LexisNexis. ERA determinations  are issued by the Department of Labour.

"From time to time the Court decides cases that have general importance for practitioners of employment law as well as for the particular parties. These will include some judgments of the full Court and others examining and applying new law. These are marked with an * in the monthly lists of all judgments and consolidated on the  Decisions of Note page."

Judgments for previous years for previous years. 2011,  2010,  2009, 2008, 2007, 2006,

Search Judgments

   Search Tips

Minute

Maritime Union of New Zealand Inc v Ports of Auckland (ARC 13/12 and ARC17/12)

Maritime Union of New Zealand Inc v Ports of Auckland (ARC 13/12 and ARC17/12 21 March)

Maritime Union of New Zealand Inc v Ports of Auckland (ARC 13/12 and ARC17/12 21 March Amended)

Maritime Union of New Zealand Inc v Ports of Auckland (ARC 13/12 and ARC17/12 21 March Changes)

Judgments 2012

May

  • [2012] NZEmpC80 Premier Events Group and Anor v Beattie and Ors  [Chief Judge Colgan, 15 May 2012] - Judgment determining that an overlooked proceeding among multiple proceedings is still extant.(PDF 64KB)

  • [2012] NZEmpC 79 Premier Events Group Ltd v Beattie [Chief Judge Colgan, 14 May 2012] -Reasons for judgment in [2012] NZEmpC 71. Unsuccessful application for strike out. Court held personal grievance raised when statement of problem served on employer after it was lodged with Authority. This approach consistent with statute and case law. Court held earlier events outside 90 day period may fall for consideration if events amount to a course of conduct leading and linked to the events within the 90 day period. Various intended evidence ruled admissible as not relevant. Use of propensity and character evidence in Employment Court discussed. (PDF 248KB)

  • [2012] NZEmpC 78 Butterworth v TBA Communications Ltd [Judge Inglis, 11 May 2012]- Application to extend time for filling of costs submissions. (PDF42KB)

  • [2012] NZEmpC 77 Premier Events Group and Anor v Beattie and Ors [Chief Judge Colgan, 11 May  2012]- Mostly successful application by BA Partners to exclude proposed evidence as inadmissible. (PDF 70KB)

  • [2012] NZEmpC76 N Ltd v O [Judge Travis, 10 May 2012] -.Reasons for oral judgment in [2012] NZEmpC 74. Unsuccessful non de novo challenge to reinstatement order. Plaintiff requested variation of order so that defendant would be on "garden leave" until substantive dispute heard. Court held defendant salesperson would be disadvantaged if away from his customer base with risk that allegations against him would permeate customer and staff circles. Defendant could also be disadvantaged if not at work during restructuring of plaintiff. (PDF120KB)

  • N Ltd v O [2012] NZEmpC 74 [Judge Travis, 3 May 2012] - Challenge dismissed. Reasons to follow.(PDF 9KB

  •  Fuqiang Yu v Xin Li and Symbol Spreading Ltd [2012] NZEmpC 75 [Judge Ford, 3 May 2012] -Successful interlocutory application for extension of time. The defendant sought an adjournment of a scheduled telephone directions conference on the grounds that he was out of the country. Court held it was in the interests of justice that an extension of time should be granted for fixing a telephone direction conference until the defendant is back in New Zealand. Costs reserved.(PDF 47KB)

  • N Ltd v O [2012] NZEmpC 74 [Judge Travis, 3 May 2012] - Challenge dismissed. Reasons to follow.(PDF 9KB)

  • Kelleher v Wiri Pacific Ltd [2012] NZEmpC 73 [Judge Inglis, 1 May 2012] -Successful application by plaintiff for leave to extend the time for filing submissions as to costs.(PDF 45KB)
  • Borrill v Elite Fitness Equipment Ltd [2012] NZEmpC 72 [Judge Inglis, 1 May 2012] Consent judgment recording terms of settlement. (PDF 45KB)
  • Premier Events Group Ltd and Ors v Beatttie and Ors [2012] NZEmpC 71 [Chief Judge Colgan, 1 May 2012] -Unsuccessful application by second defendant to strike out unjustified disadvantage claim of second plaintiff. Grievance was raised within 90 day limitation period. Disadvantage may relate to events outside 90 day period provided events outside period connected to events within period. Some evidence ruled inadmissible. Order excluding press from hearing declined. Reasons to follow.(PDF 67KB)
  • Chambers v Ers New Zealand Limited T/A Trans Pacific Industrial Solutions [2012] NZEmpC 70 [Judge Ford, 1 May 2012]- non publication order in place

April

  • Milne v Air NZ Ltd  [2012] NZEmpC 69 [Judge Inglis, 30 April 2012] -Successful application for costs by defendant in relation to application for security for costs. Plaintiff's financial circumstances reduced amount awarded.(PDF 52KB)
  • Postal Workers Union v NZ Post Ltd [2012] NZEmpC 68 [Judge Inglis, 30 April 2012] - Successful application for costs by defendant. Challenge involved interpretation of collective agreement and this factor reduced costs awarded.(PDF 110KB)

  • Penney v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd [2012] NZEmpC 67 [Judge Couch, 27 April 2012]- Successful application for costs. Defendant awarded $10,150 for costs and $12.02 for disbursements.(PDF 44KB)

  • Hepburn v Huhtamaki Henderson Ltd [2012 NZEmpC 66 [Judge Ford,, 24 April 2012] –Unsuccessful challenge. Plaintiff sought non-publication order relating to Authority determination. Court held power under cl 12(1) is restricted to proceedings currently before Employment Court, therefore no jurisdiction to issue non-publication order. (PDF 42KB)
  • Virgin Australia (NZ) Employment and Crewing Ltd (formerly Pacific Blue Employment and Crewing Ltd ) v B [ 2012] NZEmpC 65 [Judge Couch, 24 April 2012]- Successful application for costs. Plaintiff awarded $6,700 for costs and $661.26 for disbursements (PDF 75KB)
  • Wade v Hume Pack-N-Cool Ltd [2012] NZEmpC 64 [Chief Judge Colgan, 24 April 2012] –Unsuccessful challenge to Authority determination not to reopen investigation. Plaintiff applied for compliance order to enforce employment related settlement. Authority refused and plaintiff later applied to reopen investigation. Court held no jurisdiction under s 137 to issue compliance order to enforce settlement not certified by Mediation Service under s 149. And Court would have dismissed challenge as vexatious, frivolous and an abuse of the court process. Challenge also substantively without merit. (PDF 76KB)
  • [2012] NZEmpC 63 – not released.
  • Quan Enterprises Ltd v Fair [2012] NZEmpC 62 [Judge Ford, 23 April 2012]-Application for costs. Defendant awarded $4,500. (PDF 70KB)
  • Pacific Flight Catering v SFWU [2012] NZEmpC 61 [Chief Judge Colgan, 18 April 2012]-Unsuccessful challenges. Challenge by companies to Authority decision to join parties (a related company and four employees) to the proceedings. Challenge by union to Authority decision that union was not itself entitled to wage records of employee members of union. Court held challenge was not barred by ss 179(5) and 188(4) of Act as plaintiffs' claim, that Authority breached natural justice by failing to provide reasonable opportunity to be heard on the question of whether additional parties should be joined, was not procedural. No breach of natural justice in joining parties and challenge dismissed. Other grounds for plaintiffs' challenge also considered and rejected. Union not entitled to seek wage records for itself, only as agent for employees (s 230). (PDF 135KB)
  • *Mayne v Polychem Marketing Ltd [2012] NZEmpC 60 [Chief Judge Colgan, 18 April 2012] -Successful challenge. Plaintiff's contract contained clause providing continued health benefits and insurance after he left employment in 1990. Plaintiff claimed employer breached employment contract when it stopped health benefits in November 2009. Authority found no jurisdiction to consider claim. Court held Authority and Court had jurisdiction to consider if employer had breached ongoing term of employment contract. (PDF 105KB)
  • Manning v Awataha Marae Incorporated [2012] NZEmpC 59 [Chief Judge Colgan,18 April 2012] -Order, if not by consent, then without opposition, that plaintiff was not an employee of the defendant under s 6(5) of the Act. (PDF 41KB) 
  • Evolution E-Business Ltd v Smith [2012] NZEmpC 58 [Judge Ford, 17 April 2012] - Successful application for costs. Court held that a successful employee litigant is entitled to a costs award even if those costs have in fact been paid by a third party, such as an employer. The Court was satisfied in the present circumstances that the defendant was responsible for reimbursing his employer for the legal costs it had incurred in his behalf. Defendant awarded $17,381.30. (PDF 110KB)
  • *Foai v Air New Zealand Ltd [2012] NZEmpC 57 [Judge Ford, 4 April  2012] -

    Successful challenge. Plaintiff overpaid by defendant for 16 months. Defendant made claim in restitution for repayment. Plaintiff queried his pay on several occasions but overpayments were not corrected. Court held that defendant had not made out a mistake of fact needed for its claim of unjust enrichment to succeed. In addition, both defences advanced by the plaintiff successful. Equitable defence of change of position succeeds as the plaintiff, in good faith, changed his position in a way that would be inequitable to now order repayment. And plaintiff's s 94B Judicature Act 1908 defence succeeds because plaintiff, in good faith, altered his position in reliance on the validity of the payments and, having regard to the equities, it would be inequitable to compel repayment.(PDF 264KB)

 

March

  
  • Eastern Bay Independent  Industrial Workers Union  v Norske Skog Tasman Ltd [2012] NZEmpC 56 [Judge Inglis, 3 April 2012] -Successful challenge. Collective agreement provided long serving and shift working employees with additional weeks of annual leave above the statutory minimum. From 1 April 2007, statutory minimum changed from three weeks to four weeks. Plaintiff union argued additional weeks continued to apply above new minimum. Defendant argued that new minimum subsumed additional weeks of leave. Court held that intention of parties was to preserve extra entitlements above statutory minimum. History of dealings between the parties consistent with that approach. Clear approach of differentiating different types of employees with regard to their leave entitlements. Employees entitled to additional weeks of annual leave. (PDF204KB)
  •  Maritime Union of New Zealand Inc v Ports of Auckland [2012] NZEmpC55  [Judge Travis, 30 March 2012] - Plaintiff's applications for interlocutory injunctions withdrawn, excluding application relating to redundancies which is adjourned, on terms recorded in judgment. Terms include lifting of notice of lockout, an interim period during which details of a return to work will be negotiated and employees paid, that the return to work will be as soon as possible but no later than 6 April 2012, that the parties apply for facilitated bargaining, that redundancy discussions relating to December 2011 proceed and that the defendant encourages Maersk to return to Auckland.(PDF 95KB)
  • Maritime Union of New Zealand Inc v Ports of Auckland [2012] NZEmpC 54  [Judge Travis, 29 March 2012] -Reasons for issuing interlocutory injunctions in [2012] NZEmpC 52. Seriously arguable case that the actions of the defendant in allegedly threatening to and then deciding to contract out the work whilst collective bargaining was on foot was likely to undermine and arguably has undermined the bargaining (s 32(1)(d)(iii) of Employment Relations Act 2000). Plaintiff's argument that proposed dismissals were unlawful lockouts less seriously arguable. Breach of good faith and s 97 of ERA also arguable. Balance of convenience and justice of the case favoured issuance of injunctions (PDF 54KB)

  • New Zealand Educational Institute (Inc) v The Boards of Trustees of Te Mata, Parkvale and Frimley Schools Secretary for Education, Ministry of Education [2012] NZEmpC 53 [Judge Inglis, 28 March 2012]-Removal from Authority. Court declined to make the two declarations sought by the plaintiff. First, that the pilot was successful and the corresponding failure to implement the wage steps in the pilot program amounted to non-compliance with the collective agreement. Second, if a variation of the collective agreement was required to progress with PBA, then the Secretary was required to bargain cooperatively and in good faith, and failed to do so. Costs reserved. (PDF43 KB)

  • Maritime Union of New Zealand Inc v Ports of Auckland [2012] NZEmpC 52 [Judge Travis, 27 March 2012] -Interlocutory injunction issued which requires defendant until 16 May 2012, not to advance or implement the redundancy proposal; not to dismiss union members; not to employ contractors to perform the work of striking or locked out employees; instruct contractors to cease preparing for redundancies; not to encourage union members to accept employment with contractors; to give notice of employment of new employees to perform work. Defendant will also not take any steps with regard to voluntary redundancy until 5pm 30 March 2012. Hearing on that date will consider voluntary redundancy issue and application by plaintiff for injunctions to restrain alleged unlawful lockouts.(PDF 45KB)

  • New Zealand Cards Ltd v Ramsay [2012] NZEmpC 51 [Judge Couch, 27 March 2012] Unsuccessful challenge to Authority determinations. Court held defendant unjustifiably dismissed. Court set aside Authority determination pursuant to s 183(2) of the Employment Relations Act 2000. Plaintiff ordered to pay defendant $2,880 as reimbursement for lost wages, $8,000 compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to the defendant's feelings and confirmed the costs determination of the Authority which ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant $3,000. (PDF 129KB)

    Premier Events Group Ltd and Ors v Beattie and Ors [2012] NZEmpC 50 [Chief Judge Colgan, 23 March 2012] Two interlocutory issues decided. Unsuccessful application by defendants for disclosure of telephone records of persons associated with the first plaintiff. Application premature as disclosure would relate to possible remedy which is not at issue at forthcoming hearing which will address liability only. Witness summons served by defendants set aside on conditions (PDF 62KB)
  • Miller v Fonterra Co-Operative Group [2012] NZEmpC 49 [Judge Inglis, 19 March 2012]- Two applications by defendant for evidence to be ruled inadmissible. Defendant waived legal professional privilege for documents and evidence to be produced in earlier Serious Fraud Office proceedings. Court held terms of the defendant's limited waiver prevented admission of evidence. Defendant waived privilege for limited purpose and did not act inconsistently with that waiver. With respect to second application, relating to hearsay affidavit statement by deceased person, the affidavit was admissible and any prejudice to defendant could be managed in terms of weight accorded to affidavit. (PDF 175KB)
  • *Carter Holt Harvey Limited v McAuley [2012] NZEmpC 48 [Chief Judge Colgan, 14 March 2012]- Successful challenge to an Authority determination. Court held defendant not unjustifiably disadvantaged. Authority misinterpreted s 66 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 by requiring the plaintiff to meet a test of sufficient specificity which is not only absent from the section but adds a gloss to it that is contrary to its scheme. When the correct s 66 test was applied to the fixed-term agreements, either or both tests were satisfied. Plaintiff awarded costs. (PDF 134KB) 
  • TLNZ Auckland Ltd and C3 Ltd v MUNZ and Parsloe & Ors and Jennings & 21 ors. [2012] NZEmpC 47 [Judge Travis, 13 March 2012] - Reasons for judgment declining urgent interim injunction to restrain strike in [2012] NZEmpC 45. Application to restrain strike which would have prevented loading of 'blacklisted' containers onto cargo ship. Injunction proceedings would have effectively decided the matter as containers would or would not be loaded and ship was then to depart. Seriously, but not strongly arguable, case that strike was unlawful as loading of ship by employees fell within coverage clause of collective agreement. Balance of convenience marginally favoured the plaintiffs. Overall justice of the case did not require issuance of injunction. Dispute as to whether parties had agreement not to load ship. Delay in bringing proceedings. Possible involvement/breach of s 97 of the ERA if injunction issued (PDF 201KB) 
  • Progressive Meats Limited v Pohio & Anor. [2012] NZEmpC 46 [Judge Ford, 9 March 2012] -Successful application to file a statement of defence out of time. (PDF 45KB) 
  • TLNZ Auckland Ltd and C3 Ltd v MUNZ, Parsloe and ors [2012] NZEmpC 45 [Judge Travis, 7 March 2012] - Unsuccessful application for an urgent interim injuction. (PDF 39KB)
  • Lyttelton Port Co Ltd v MUNZ [2012] NZEmpC 44 [Chief Judge Colgan, 7 March 2012]- Successful application for an urgent interim injunction. The Court held that the plaintiff had established a very strong argument of unlawfulness of the proposed strike action, as the employees are subject to a current collective agreement and with the plaintiff and no notice of the strike in the required statutory form was given. The balance of convenience rested with the plaintiff, as the potential losses of income and commercial reputation that the port company is likely to suffer will be difficult to quantify. The Court while acknowledging the importance to the defendant's of signifying their solidarity for Auckland members, stated that the law does not favour their doing so by strike action in this case.The overall justice of the case it was found therefore lay in favour of granting injunctive relief. The Court ordered that the defendants and their officers, employees, agents and members are restrained from being a party or parties to, or directing, encouraging or inducing their members from participating in unlawful strike action and, in particular in relation to the arrival, working and departure of the vessel known as Lisa Schulte and other vessels, effective immediately. The parties were also directed to attend mediation. Costs were reserved. (PDF 73KB)
  • CentrePort Wellington Limited v Maritime Union of New Zealand & Anor.[2012] NZEmpC 43 [Judge Ford, 6 March 2012] -Successful application for an urgent interim injunction. Court held that the plaintiff had established it had arguable substantive case that the strike was illegal, as it occurred whilst a binding collective agreement was in force and the defendants could not show reasonable justification for the strike on health and safety grounds. The balance of convenience rested with the plaintiff as the events had had a significant potential impact on CentrePort's reputation as a "can do" port and damages would be difficult to quantify. The overall justice of the case it was found therefore lay in favour of granting injunctive relief. The Court ordered that the defendants and their officers, employees and agents refrain from being party to, or directing, encouraging or inducing their members to refrain from working the Maersk Aberdeen or any other vessel on grounds related to the dispute at the Ports of Auckland. The parties were also directed to attend mediation. Costs were reserved. (PDF 75KB)
  •  C3 Ltd v Rail and Maritime Transport Union Inc & Anor [2012] NZEmpC 42 [Judge Travis, 6 March 2012]-Reasons for issuance of interim injunctions against defendants. Strongly arguable case that employees unlawfully on strike in refusing to cross picket line to work ship. Balance of convenience and justice of the case favoured issuance of injunctions. Mediation ordered. (PDF 50KB)
  •  Port of Tauranga Ltd v Rail and Maritime Transport Union Inc & Anor [2012] NZEmpC 41 [Judge Travis, 6 March 2012] -Reasons for issuance of interim injunctions against defendants. Strongly arguable case that employees unlawfully on strike in refusing to cross picket line to work ship. No reasonable grounds to believe health and safety justified refusal to cross picket line. Balance of convenience and justice of the case favoured issuance of injunctions. Mediation ordered. (PDF 68KB) 

  • Kaipara v Carter Holt Harvey Limited  [2012] NZEmpC 40 [Chief Judge Colgan, 5 March 2012] -Unsuccessful challenge. Suspension and dismissal procedurally and substantively fair. No disparate treatment in outcome for plaintiff compared to other employees. No disadvantage from failure to disclose some company documents or from reassurances given to plaintiff. (PDF 169KB)

  • Imperial Tobacco New Zealand Limited v Pereira [2012] NZEmpC 39 [Judge Ford, 2 March 2012] -Successful application for stay of proceedings, subject to condition that the defendant stay on the plaintiff's payroll until delivery of judgment following the substantive hearing. Court held plaintiff would suffer serious prejudice should a stay not be granted, but any countervailing prejudice to the defendant would be minimal. Costs reserved.  (PDF 113KB)

  • Munro v Hibiscus Coast Security [2012] NZEmpC 38  [Judge Inglis, 2 march 2012] -Partially successful challenge. Suspension procedure flawed as no opportunity for comment by plaintiff. Constructive dismissal claim unsuccessful. Three months' lost salary and $4000 awarded reduced by 20% for contribution. (PDF112 KB)

  • Anto v Planet Spice Ltd [2012] NZEmpC 37 [Judge Ford, 1 March 2012] Successful application for costs by defendant. Court held that had reliable evidence been available about undue hardship to the plaintiff, it would have ordered that costs lie where they fall. Court held costs claimed grossly excessive, so awarded the defendant $600. The Court also made reference to clause 19(2) of Schedule 3 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 which gives the Court broad powers to vary or alter the costs award at any time. On the issue raised about the unlikelihood of a potential plaintiff knowing the outcome of a legal aid application before the expiration of the 28-day limitation period for challenging a determination, the Court suggested a basic pro forma challenge should be lodged within the limitation period so as to preserve the litigant's rights and memorandum be filed and served requesting the Court to give directions that no statement of defence need be filed until the outcome of the legal aid application is determined [Chief Judge Colgan, 5 March 2012] -Unsuccessful challenge. Suspension and dismissal procedurally and substantively fair. No disparate treatment in outcome for plaintiff compared to other employees. No disadvantage from failure to disclose some company documents or from reassurances given to plaintiff. (PDF 67KB)

February

  • Board v ADECCO Personnel Ltd[2012] NZEmpC 36 [Judge Inglis, 29 February 2012] -Consent judgment(PDF 8KB)
  • NZ School of Education Ltd v Nafissi [2011] NZEmpC 35 [Judge Inglis, 29 February 2012-Successful costs challenge. Authority failed to give Calderbank offer its proper weight. Costs to lie where they fall.(PDF 76KB)
  • Coventry v Singh [2012]NZEmpC 34 [Judge Inglis, 23 February 2012] -Application for enforcement of compliance order. Service problems did not affect validity of compliance order. Order for imprisonment (suspended) not appropriate. Fine of $3,000 and $2,000 costs ordered. (PDF 76KB)
  • Cruickshank v CE of Unitec [2012]NZEmpC 33 [Chief Judge Colgan, 27 February 2012]- Application by plaintiff to adduce further evidence after hearing. Evidence relating to reinstatement remedy admissible. Reinstatement is dynamic and Court must be satisfied remedy practicable. Other evidence relating to justification not admissible. Justification will be determined first and then reinstatement issue will be considered, if necessary, separately to allow defendant to respond.  (PDF KB)
  • French v ACC [2012]NZEmpC 32 [Judge Ford, 27 February 2012]- Successful application for an extension of time to file a statement of claim. (PDF 53KB)
  • RHB Chartered Accountants Limited and Brown and Wilkins v Rawcliffe [2012] NZEmpC 31 [Judge Inglis, 24 February 2012]-Successful challenge to Authority costs determination. Defendant had named incorrect employers in Authority. Plaintiffs raised this with defendant and Authority and asked for preliminary determination but were directed to mediation. After mediation, defendant withdrew claim against plaintiffs. Policy issues around costs awards for attending mediation discussed. Costs of $1000 awarded to plaintiffs for attending mediation and preparation of statement in reply. (PDF 184KB)
  • Kim v Thermosash Commercial Ltd [2012] NZEmpC 30 [Judge Inglis, 24 February 2012]-Unsuccessful application for stay of Authority costs determination. Costs determination has not been challenged so reg 64 of Employment Court Regulations does not apply. (PDF 88KB)
  • Tourism Holdings Limited (trading as CI Munro) v Charlesworth [2012] NZEmpC 29 [Judge Travis, 23 February 2012]-Successful challenge to Authority costs determination. Plaintiff's Calderbank offer affected amount of costs awarded and impact of Calderbank offers in Authority discussed. Costs of $10,000 awarded but to be paid by instalments once defendant finds work. (PDF 137KB)
  • Chen v Banclogix Ltd [2012] NZEmpC 28 [Judge Ford, 22 February 2012]-Successful application for costs by defendant. Defendant awarded $8,000, but Court ordered indefinite stay of award. Held payment at this point in time would cause plaintiff undue hardship. Leave reserved to alter costs award should the plaintiff obtain remunerative employment pursuant to clause 19(2) of Schedule 3 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. (PDF 60KB)
  • Taylor v Milburn Lime Ltd [2012] NZEmpC 27 [Judge Couch, 22 February 2012] -Successful application by plaintiff for costs. Plaintiff awarded $7,600 for costs in the Court, $2,700 for costs in the Authority and $772.44 for disbursements. Interest award request rejected.  (PDF 75KB)
  • Premier Events Group Ltd v Beattie [2012] NZEmpC 26 [Chief Judge Colgan, 21 February 2012]-Partially successful application by second plaintiff to strike out parts of statement of defence of second defendant. Dispute concerns money claimed to have been unlawfully taken by second defendant. Second defendant asserts money lawfully belongs to him for salary and annual leave and, in alternative, pleads several set-offs. Some parts of statement of defence held not justiciable defences nor set-offs; other parts must be re-pleaded. Other defences held to be possible set-offs and not struck out. (PDF 141KB)
  • Air New Zealand Ltd v Milne [2012] NZEmpC 25 [Judge Inglis, 20 February 2012]-Successful application for security for costs. Respondent overseas and Court satisfied respondent may not be able to pay costs. Application for stay until Authority costs award paid into Court unsuccessful. Security for costs order sufficient in circumstances. (PDF 117KB)
  • Butterworth v TBA Communications Ltd. [2012] NZEmpC 24 [Judge Inglis, 17 February 2012]-unsuccessful challenge to compliance order. Plaintiff partially complied with Authority order for costs by paying part of amount and drip-feeding payments. Authority issued compliance order requiring payment of whole amount. Court held Authority was within jurisdiction in issuing compliance order as costs award was due and had not been complied with. Question about whether payment instalments permitted by statute in this case but financial position of plaintiff did not require payment by instalments. Cross-challenge for indemnity costs against plaintiff dismissed. (PDF 147KB)
  • Smith v Caprima Cuisine Ltd T/A Grillers Resturant [2012] NZEmpC 23 [Judge Travis, 17 February 2012]-Consent judgment recording that confidential settlement has been reached. (PDF 9KB)
  • Vine-Tech Contracting Ltd v Wattam [2012] NZEmpC 22 [Judge Couch, 14 February 2012]-Unsuccessful challenge to Authority determination. Court held defendants unjustifiably dismissed. Procedure followed by the plaintiff was inappropriate and plainly in breach of its s 4(1A)(c) duty of good faith. Court reduced the amount of reimbursement ordered by the Authority by $1,500 and awarded interest of 5% for lost remuneration. Costs reserved. (KB 14PDF)

  • Asian Business Yearbook v Leung [2012] NZEmpC 21 [Judge Travis,17 February 2012] -Costs. Late discontinuance of proceedings by plaintiff did not justify indemnity costs. Claim for air travel disallowed. Two-thirds reasonable costs awarded. (PDF 55KB)

  • *White & Others v Reserve Bank of New Zealand [2012] NZEmpC 20 [Judge Ford,17 February 2012]- Descriptor: Removal from Authority. Unsuccessful claim by plaintiffs that the defendant failed to fulfil its obligation to periodically review and adjust the employee superable salary percentage, despite a contractual undertaking to do so. Court held that defendant was not under any contractual obligation to regularly review and adjust the superable salary percentage. Defendant entitled to costs. (PDF 147KB)

  • Warmington & ONeill v AFFCO NZ Ltd 2012] NZEmpC 19 [Judge Inglis, 14 February 2012] -Unsuccessful challenge. Plaintiffs agreed 3 month restraint of trade clause. Court found there was no unfair bargaining (s 68 of ERA). What was said did not mislead plaintiffs and there was no reasonable reliance on employer's representations about restraint. Employer had no knowledge of reliance. Restraint of trade protected proprietary interest in confidential information and was reasonable in all other respects and enforceable. (KB PDF) to be added
  • Oldco PTI Ltd v Houston [2012] NZEmpC 18 [Judge Travis,13 February 2012] -Consent judgment recording settlement of the proceedings. Challenge allowed and Authority determinations set aside. (KB 40PDF) 
  • Transpacific Industries Group (NZ) Ltd v Harris & Others [2012] NZEmpC 17 [Judge Couch, 9 February 2012] -Successful application by plaintiff for special leave for removal from Authority. Court held that the issue of the enforceability of a restraint of competition clause was an important question of law which would arise other than incidentally. Grounds for removal in s 178(2)(a) satisfied. (KB 90PDF)
  •  Moxey v Westminster Pacific (NZ) Ltd [2012] NZEmpC 16 [Judge Inglis, 8 February 2012] -Successful application to enforce a compliance order. Fine of $8,000 imposed with half to be paid to plaintiff.(KB 64PDF).
  • Coventry v Singh [2012] NZEmpC 15 [Judge Inglis, 9 February 2012] Successful application by defendant for leave to be heard despite failure to file statement of defence. Successful application by defendant for adjournment of proceedings to enforce a compliance order because of need to instruct counsel. Application granted because of seriousness of possible penalties and lack of prejudice to plaintiff.(KB 138PDF)
  • Kim v Thermosash Commercial Ltd [2012] NZEmpC 14 [Judge Inglis, 7 February 2012] - Successful application for extension of time to file amended statement of claim.(KB 46PDF)
  • Maritime Union of New Zealand v C3 Ltd [2012] NZEmpC 13 [Judge Travis, 2 February 2012] -Successful application by defendant for costs. Case withdrawn by plaintiff before Maritime Union of New Zealand v C3 Ltd judgment after new collective agreement reached. Indemnity costs not appropriate.(KB 76PDF)
  • Lawrence & Frankish v Ex Ced Foods (in Liquidation) [2012] NZEmpC 12 [Judge Couch, 2 Febrauary 2012] -Consent order containing details of settlement of case. (KB 41PDF)
  • Hooper v Coca-ColaAMatil (NZ) Ltd [2012] NZEmpC 11 [Judge Ford, 2 February 2012] Successful challenge to Authority determination. Plaintiff failed a urinary drugs test which returned a positive result for cannabis use. Court held that the defendant did not have reasonable cause to require the plaintiff to undergo a drug test. Defendant's conduct failed to meet s103A test of justification for dismissal. Plaintiff awarded $4,000 for non-economic loss and costs.(KB 212PDF) 
  • Brunton v Garden City Helicopters Ltd [2012] NZEmpC 10 [Judge Travis, 1 February 2012] -Successful application for costs. Defendant awarded $40,000. Held Court has no jurisdiction to order an equitable set off in favour of a contracting company in a personal grievance setting. Due to shortcomings in conduct by both parties, held Authority costs should lie where they fall (PDF 76KB) 

January

  • Lawrence & Frankish v Lock & Sheahan [2012] NZEmpC 9 [Judge Couch, 27 January 2012] - Successful challenge by defendants to objection to disclosure of financial records relating to first plaintiff. Documents relevant to proving loss and duty to mitigate. (PDF 59KB) 
  • Gazeley v Oceania Group (NZ) Ltd [2012] NZEmpC 8 [Judge Couch, 24 January 2012] - Unsuccessful challenge to Authority determination for interim reinstatement. Costs reserved (PDF 125KB) 
  • Transfacific All Brite Ltd v Sanko & Combs[2012] NZEmpC 7 [Chief Judge Colgan, 26 January 2012] - Successful application for stay of proceedings, subject to conditions. Costs reserved. (PDF 102KB) 
  • De Bruin v Canterbury District Health Board [2012] NZEmpC 6 [Judge Couch, 25 January 2012] - Successful application to extend time for the commencement of proceedings to challenge Authority determination (PDF 49KB)
  • Bishop & Bishop v Bennett [2012] NZEmpC 5 [Judge Couch, 20 January 2012] - Successful application for costs. Defendant awarded $10,000. Court held no undue hardship for plaintiffs. (PDF 89KB)
  • Haig v Edgewater Developers Ltd and Others [2012] NZEmpC 4 [Chief Judge Colgan, 20 January 2012] - Four interlocutory matters decided. Successful application by plaintiff for leave to file further submissions after hearing. In the circumstances, correct approach was to allow further submissions and dismiss application for rehearing. Unsuccessful application by plaintiff for disclosure of defendants' financial records. Successful application by plaintiff for letters of request for two overseas witnesses. Successful application by defendant for separate hearings on liability and quantum. (PDF 127KB)
  • M Limited (in Liquidation) v J [2012] NZEmpC 3 [Chief Judge Colgan, 20 January 2012] - Judgment recording settlement between parties. As part of settlement, previous judgments ([2011] NZEmpC 174, [2011] NZEmpC 176) and this judgment have been anonymised to protect identity of defendant. Interests of justice do not require identification of defendant and anonymity does not affect explanation of Court's decisions in previous judgments. (PDF 44KB)
  • Bourne and Ors v New Zealand Merchant Service Guild Industrial Union of workers Inc [2012] NZEmpC 2 [Judge Couch, 18 January 2012] - Unsuccessful application for costs by defendant. Issue by issue approach to costs inappropriate as issues were intertwined. Shortcomings in plaintiffs' pleadings and conduct of case did not alter Court's preliminary view that costs should lie where they fall. (PDF 51KB).
  • Auckland Council v McFadgen [2012] NZEmpC 1 [Chief Judge Colgan, 6 January 2012] - Consent judgment setting aside Employment Relations Authority determination and recording that parties have settled dispute confidentially. (PDF 40KB)
Document Actions