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

2257 items matching your search terms

  1. [2018] NZEmpC 128 Blue Water Hotel Ltd v VBS [PDF, 435 KB]

    [2018] NZEmpC 128 Blue Water Hotel Ltd v VBS (Judgment of the Full Court, 7 November 2018) EXTENSION OF TIME – whether there is discretion to extend time for personal grievance after 3 years – analysis of ss 114(6), 219(1) and 221 – time limit in s 114(6) is mandatory – Parliamentary history considered – policies behind limitation periods in general considered – lack of discretion to extend the period is s 114(6) must be deliberate by Parliament – ss 219 and 221 are part of the Court’s special jurisdiction – cases discussed – ss 219 and 221 cannot be used to extend the time limit in s 114(6) – challenge allowed.

  2. GSTech Ltd v A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [PDF, 283 KB]

    [2018] NZEmpC 127 GSTech Ltd v A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Costs Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 31 October 2018) COSTS – whether Labour Inspector action regarding minimum standards warrants special approach to costs – not appropriate in this instance – costs to follow the event – costs of $8,000 in Authority, $22,300 on the challenge - $1,000 costs on costs, plus disbursements. 

  3. [2018] NZEmpC 126 Johnstone v Kinetic Employment Ltd [PDF, 261 KB]

    [2018] NZEmpC 126 Johnstone v Kinetic Employment Ltd (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 26 October 2018) JURISDICTION – OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION - appropriate procedure for objection to jurisdiction – whether Authority has jurisdiction to order forensic examination of computers – whether Court has jurisdiction to challenge the Authority’s determination as to its jurisdiction to do that – whether s 179(5) prevents a challenge – Court may have jurisdiction – proceedings not dismissed – statement of defence to be filed.

  4. [2018] NZEmpC 123 Roach v Nazareth Care Charitable Trust Board [PDF, 567 KB]

    [2018] NZEmpC 123 Roach v Nazareth Care Charitable Trust Board (Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 19 October 2018) UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – 90-DAY TRIAL – DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEE – whether second employment agreement contained invalid trial period as plaintiff had been previously employed in first agreement – purpose of trial period is to observe work – second trial period valid – dismissal without notice did not comply with s 67B(1) – unjustifiable dismissal found – remedies of 12 months’ salary, compensation of $25,000.

  5. [2018] NZEmpC 115 Culturesafe NZ Ltd v Turuki Healthcare Services Charitable Trust [PDF, 235 KB]

    [2018] NZEmpC 115 Culturesafe NZ Ltd v Turuki Healthcare Services Charitable Trust (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 1 October 2018) GOOD FAITH REPORT – APPLICATION FOR STAY  - compliance orders previously made by Authority – time expired for challenge application for stay of penalties and damages – – good faith report suggested breach - issues still to be canvassed at hearing involve important points of principle – stay allowed subject to strict conditions.

  6. [2018] NZEmpC 112 Kazemi v Rightway Ltd [PDF, 289 KB]

    [2018] NZEmpC 112 Kazemi v Rightway Ltd (Costs Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 27 September 2018) COSTS –  $1,500 awarded for Authority costs plus filing fee - $6,913 exclusive of GST set for special leave application – no fee for obtaining judgment without appearance – costs of $6,690 granted to defendant for effort in responding to challenge which was not discontinued though replaced with special leave application – modest costs allowed for challenge to costs determination – total incl GST of $2,757.44.

  7. [2018] NZEmpC 113 Richora Group Ltd v Cheng [PDF, 396 KB]

    [2018] NZEmpC 113 Richora Group Ltd v Cheng (Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 26 September 2018) UNJUSTIFIABLE CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL – no employment agreement until point of dismissal – no process for investigating allegation – post-employment actions of employer –three months lost remuneration plus unpaid wages ordered – factors in assessing quantum of compensation considered – high end harm - greater compensation than claimed could not be awarded – $20,000 ordered in favour of defendant.

  8. [2018] NZEmpC 110 A Labour Inspector v Prabh Ltd [PDF, 508 KB]

    [2018] NZEmpC 110 A Labour Inspector v Prabh Ltd (Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 24 September 2018) BREACH OF MINIMUM STANDARDS – PENALTIES – serious breaches – vulnerable employees – immigration issues – principles applying to calculation of penalties – Preet method followed – pre-and post-April 2016 not treated differently – importance of deterrence – banning orders not imposed – penalties against company - $100,000; against directors - $16,000 each. - $10,000 direct to each employee, otherwise to Crown.