Appellate judgments 2025

Supreme Court

[2025] NZSC 2 Halse v Rangiura Trust Board  [PDF, 146 KB] Unsuccessful recall of prior unsuccessful SC recall decision Initial recall decision related to dismissed application for leave to appeal, based on alleged conflict of interest of judge (case management in related CA matter).SC in first recall, found no grounds for recusal, and regardless leave dismissed (no realistic prospects of success).Now H arguing remaining two judges should not have decided on alleged conflict without considering application to file affidavit.Held: No valid grounds for latest recall
Appropriate for two panel judges to decide on recall (no conflicts) Affidavit evidence unnecessary as basis for recusal and case management functions clear from record. Registrar instructed not to accept further related applications

Court of Appeal

[2025] NZCA 219 [PDF, 320 KB] The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hairland Holdings Limited. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE COURT answered the question on appeal as follows:  Does the Employment Relations Authority have jurisdiction to hear an application, brought by a purported employer against the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment, the Labour Inspector and/or its workers, for a bare declaration that its workers are not employees under s 6(1) of the Employment Relations Act 2000?  No.  The Employment Court judgment is set aside.  The appellant’s strike-out application in the Employment Court is granted.  The respondent must pay the appellant costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements.

[2025] NZCA 173 Watkins v Highmark Homes Ltd [PDF, 212 KB]Unsuccessful application for extension of time to apply for leave to appeal and unsuccessful appeal against stay of judgment. W sought leave to appeal EmpC decisions (security for costs and costs) 97 days and 16 days late. Extension refused as delays substantial, proposed appeals hopeless and W bankrupt and unable to provide security for costs. W also appealed HC decision staying defamation proceedings under r 5.35B (abuse of process) against former employer. Proceeding untenable and abuse of process

[2025] NZCA 83 Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki – Ministry for Children V Bigson Gumbeze  [PDF, 201 KB]Leave to appeal EC decision re unjustified dismissal (s 214 Employment Relations Act 2000). G employed as social worker by OT and dismissed for serious and persistent misconduct after refusing to engage with investigation into practice. ERA found dismissal justified but overturned on appeal by EC. OT sought leave to appeal on six questions of law. Held: Leave granted to appeal on two questions of law (general public importance). Did EC err in its assessment under s 103A of what "fair and reasonable employer" could have done in all circumstances?. EC focused solely on if G's conduct was "serious misconduct" under OT policy. Did EC fail to properly consider statutory principles and duties in Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, which require consideration of child wellbeing and safety?. Reasonably arguable as EC made only passing reference to principles. Declined leave on four other questions (fact specific, no general/public importance).

[2025] NZCA 42 Wiles v Vice-Chancellor of the University of Auckland  [PDF, 173 KB] LEAVE TO APPEAL – COURT OF APPEAL – ACADEMIC FREEDOM – GOOD FAITH DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES – whether Employment Court erred in finding plaintiff’s academic freedom was not breached – whether Employment Court erred in finding that damages could not be awarded for breach of statutory duty of good faith – whether the Employment Court erred in assessing damages – not seriously arguable that Employment Court failed to recognise academic freedom and freedom of expression – duty to preserve academic freedom applies to mainstream opinions as well as controversial or unpopular opinions – arguments that the Court should have gone further in its reasoning, or been more generous in its award, do not raise questions of law of general or public importance – questions limited to the assessment of the facts and circumstances of the particular case – application for leave to appeal declined

[2025] NZCA 11 Allan Geoffrey Halse v Employment Court of New Zealand And Ors  [PDF, 279 KB]Successful strike out judicial review(r 44A Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, s 213 Employment Relations Act 2000) Order to extend civil restraint order declined (s 166(4) Senior Courts Act 2016) H, "busy litigant", acted as employment advocate and briefly represented employee of THCCT (3rd respondent), S (5th respondent) H alleged various errors in law, procedure and breaches of natural justice relating to EmpC decisions involving H, S and THCCT Held: Judicial review struck out No reasonably arguable cause of action per r 15.1 HCR matters more suited to appeal vexatious attempt to relitigate matters previously sought judicial review on similar grounds No jurisdiction to extend s 166 order, only HC has jurisdiction (supervisory role on appeal)CA declined to reconstitute as HC to make order CA may have inherent power to make restraint order to protect processes from abuse, but prefer to use statutory jurisdiction (safeguards)

[2025] NZCA  1 Tranzurban Hutt Valley Limited v New Zealand Tramways and Public Passenger Transport Employees' Union Wellington Branch Inc   [PDF, 261 KB] Unsuccessful appeal of EC decision finding bus driver "split shifts" are separate work periods (s 69ZC Employment Relations Act 2000). Union argued split shifts should be one continuous work period, entitling drivers to extra paid rest/meal breaks. T treated split shits as 2 separate work periods, if break exceeded 2 hours, reducing breaks, per collective agreement. EC determined split shifts can be separate work periods, as consistent with collective agreement (s 697C), work period ends when driver signs off and resumes when sign back on. Held: No errors in EC interpretation of s 69ZC, consistent with collective terms and with ERA's purpose of productive employment relationships including collective bargaining and individual choice. Split shifts can be separate work periods, provided breaks are sufficiently long and drivers are free to do what they want during breaks. No evidence of union's concerns T use split shifts to avoid minimum break entitlements
Appeal dismissed, 2A costs awarded to T