You can search by selecting a jurisdiction, a keyword (for example a name) or browse by year.

Some jurisdictions only publish a selection of decisions. Identifying details may be removed.

Search results

2455 items matching your search terms

  1. [2020] NZEmpC 66 A Labour Inspector v Fernando [PDF, 235 KB]

    [2020] NZEmpC 66 A Labour Inspector v Fernando (Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 22 May 2020) PENALTIES – INTEREST – directors were directly or indirectly concerned in company’s breaches – company was liquidated – whether directors owed interest on wage and holiday pay arrears – cause of action was complete when the company defaulted in wages and holiday pay, prior to company’s liquidation – directors are liable for interest payments accruing from that date.

  2. [2020] NZEmpC 64 Max Pennington Motors Ltd v A Labour Inspector [PDF, 253 KB]

    [2020] NZEmpC 64 Max Pennington Motors Ltd v A Labour Inspector, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 15 May 2020) HOLIDAY PAY – whether commission should be included in public holiday pay – whether average daily pay should be used instead of relevant daily pay – average daily pay would result in a windfall for salespersons – relevant daily pay possible and practicable to calculate – company was permitted to use relevant daily pay.

  3. [2020] NZEmpC 63 Southern Taxis Ltd v A Labour Inspector [PDF, 518 KB]

    [2020] NZEmpC 63 Southern Taxis Ltd v A Labour Inspector (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 14 May 2020) NATURE OF EMPLOYMENT – SECTION 6 – taxi drivers were stated to be independent contractors – no written employment agreements – no common intention – some degree of control – drivers were not in business on their own account – evidence of industry practice was vague – taxi drivers were employees – MINIMUM STANDARDS OF EMPLOYMENT – employees were not paid minimum wage, holiday pay or rest breaks – company is unable to pay sums owing – directors could not be personally liable under s 234 or s 142W because they did not realise drivers were employees.

  4. [2020] NZEmpC 62 Gibson-Smith v Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [PDF, 388 KB]

    [2020] NZEmpC 62 Gibson-Smith v Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 11 May 2020) UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT – employee had special arrangement not to work on line related to providing assistance with tenancy bonds – whether Ministry could change arrangement – arrangement became part of employment agreement – no evidence of agreement being altered – Ministry’s procedure was flawed – employee was unjustifiably disadvantaged - $2,000 awarded for compensation.

  5. [2020] NZEmpC 60 Noble v Ballooning Canterbury.com Ltd [PDF, 299 KB]

    [2020] NZEmpC 60 Noble v Ballooning Canterbury.com Ltd (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 7 May 2020) APPLICATION FOR DECLARATION OF WITHDRAWAL – client will not respond to counsel communications – client unable to be reached – application for substituted service – counsel did not attempt all options to reach client – application for joinder of third parties for costs – whether counsel should be liable for costs – failure to record client’s address was imprudent but not a very serious breach of rules of procedure – joinder not warranted.

  6. [2020] NZEmpC 61 Leota v Parcel Express Ltd [PDF, 465 KB]

    [2020] NZEmpC 61 Leota v Parcel Express Ltd (Judgment of Chief Judge C Inglis, 7 May 2020) NATURE OF EMPLOYMENT – SECTION 6 – real nature of the relationship between a courier driver and a courier company – worker spoke English as a second language – high degree of control – industry practice relevant but not determinative – no ability for worker to grow his own business – worker owned a van but using company finances and specifications – factors point toward a relationship of employment.

  7. [2020] NZEmpC 58 Kennedy v Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki – Ministry for Children [PDF, 208 KB]

    [2020] NZEmpC 58 Kennedy v Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki – Ministry for Children (Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 5 May 2020) CHALLENGE TO AUTHORITY MINUTES – whether challenge is available under s 179 – minutes can still be determinations – whether the determinations are about the procedure the Authority is intending to follow – interim orders in this case do not have an irreversible and substantive effect – decision to order attendance is procedural – challenge not available.  

  8. [2020] NZEmpC 53 Adventure Playground Rotorua Ltd v Isaac [PDF, 199 KB]

    [2020] NZEmpC 53 Adventure Playground Rotorua Ltd v Isaac (Interlocutory Judgment (No 2) of Judge J C Holden, 28 April 2020) APPLICATION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – company not in financial position to pay Authority award – employee would be injuriously affected by a stay – application declined - APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS – company would not be in a position to pay an award of costs if its challenge does not succeed – security for costs ordered.

  9. [2020] NZEmpC 51 O’Boyle v McCue [PDF, 298 KB]

    [2020] NZEmpC 51 O’Boyle v McCue (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 28 April 2020) DISCLOSURE – MEDICAL CONFIDENTIALITY – whether employee’s medical records should be disclosed – breach of medical confidentiality – evidence is not sufficiently relevant to determining the issues to outweigh the public interest in keeping medical records confidential – objection to disclosure upheld – APPLICATION TO AMEND STATEMENT OF CLAIM – amendment unnecessary – application dismissed.

  10. [2020] NZEmpC 49 Maritime Union of New Zealand Inc v ISO Ltd [PDF, 381 KB]

    [2020] NZEmpC 49 Maritime Union of New Zealand Inc v ISO Ltd (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 22 April 2020) APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT A PLAINTIFF – whether Union has standing when there is no collective agreement – Union is not “affected” under s 137(4)(a) and therefore does not have standing – union struck out - APPLICATION TO JOIN A PLAINTIFF – whether other employee can be joined as plaintiff – contracts were materially the same – plaintiff joined under s 221.