From 3 June 2025 the Employment Court will start publishing its judgments from 24 hours after the delivery date, or the next business day, unless otherwise directed by a judge. Decisions of public interest may be published earlier, as directed by a judge.

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

3871 items matching your search terms

  1. [2015] NZEmpC 232 Bidvest New Zealand Limited v FIRST Union Inc reasons for interlocutory [PDF, 132 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 232 Bidvest New Zealand Limited v FIRST Union Inc (Reasons for interlocutory judgment of Chief Judge Colgan, 21 December 2015). INTERIM INJUNCTION – notice of intention to strike – whether action unlawful because employees engaged in essential service – question of fact and degree in a particular case – arguable case established – balance of convenience and overall justice favoured granting of interim injunction – parties directed to mediation.

  2. [2015] NZEmpC 230 FIRST Union Inc v Jacks Hardware and Timber Ltd [PDF, 365 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 230 FIRST Union Inc v Jacks Hardware and Timber Ltd, (Judgment of Chief Judge Colgan, 17 December 2015). DECLARATION – AN END TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING? - FACILITATED BARGAINING – declaration regarding employer's assertion that bargaining for collective agreement concluded on specific date without settlement of a collective agreement – application for order directing parties to facilitated bargaining – whether breach of good faith – s 33 Employment Relations Act 2000 – whether genuine reasons based on reasonable grounds – place of remuneration in collective agreements and confidentiality of employment terms – whether bargaining was unduly protracted – whether extensive efforts failed to resolve difficulties and precluded parties from entering into agreement - Held, Bargaining not lawfully ended under former s 33 - Authority to accept application for facilitated bargaining – plaintiff entitled to costs but no time limit imposed on application.

  3. [2015] NZEmpC 225 Lumsden v Skycity Management Ltd [PDF, 206 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 225 Lumsden v Skycity Management Ltd, (judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 16 December 2015). FRIVOLOUS AND VEXATIOUS – REVISITING FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS - claim of breach of settlement agreement – whether challenge to settlement containing “full and final settlement” clause was frivolous and vexatious – part of a matter cannot be dismissed on such grounds – meaning of ‘frivolous’ considered – not the same as lacking legal merit – must be impossible to take seriously – in some circumstances full and final settlement may be revisited – Authority to proceed with investigation.

  4. [2015] NZEmpC 222 Marra Construction (2004) Ltd v Pretorius [PDF, 146 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 222 Marra Construction (2004) Ltd v Pretorius, (Judgment of Judge Corkill, 11 December 2015) EXTENSION OF TIME – whether application to lodge challenge out of time should be granted – whether justice of case justifies extension – no prejudice caused to respondent due to delay – partial compliance in that it was filed in time but fee was paid late – it would be unfair for applicant to be denied possibility of challenge – Held, leave to extend time granted, filing fee to be accepted by Registrar - costs to lie where they fall

  5. [2015] NZEmpC 220 Wellington Free Ambulance Service Inc v Austing costs [PDF, 67 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 220 Wellington Free Ambulance Service Inc v Austing costs, (Costs Judgment of Judge A D Ford, 10 December 2015. COSTS – whether costs were reasonably incurred – starting point of 66 per cent of costs reasonably incurred – whether factors justify an increase or decrease from that starting point – award of costs is discretionary – court not persuaded to make any adjustment to the usual starting point – disbursements considered and allowed in part – Held, plaintiff ordered to pay costs and disbursements in total sum of $17,535.

  6. [2015] NZEmpC 219 NZ Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc v AFFCO NZ Ltd [PDF, 108 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 219 NZ Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc v AFFCO NZ Ltd - (Interlocutory Judgment (No 6) of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 9 December 2015) IMPLEMENTATION OF FULL COURT’ ORDERS – position at Wairoa works– need to identify affected employees – allegations of disadvantageous shift work and denial of overtime for some Union employees – Union claim for past losses – applications by Union for facilitation and by AFFCO that bargaining has concluded – timetable for further applications.

  7. [2015] NZEmpC 218 Corporate Energy Ltd (in liq) (formerly known as Corporate Energy Ltd t/a Caltex Glenbrook) v Singh [PDF, 78 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 218 Corporate Energy Ltd (in liq) (formerly known as Corporate Energy Ltd t/a Caltex Glenbrook) v Singh (Oral Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 7 December 2015)  NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE – COSTS - plaintiff failed to file bundle – strike out application made – pre-empted by notice of discontinuance by liquidator – costs of $8,920 against plaintiff

  8. [2015] NZEmpC 215 Rimmer v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd interlocutory [PDF, 160 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 215 Rimmer v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd interlocutory, (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 3 December 2015) . ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT EVIDENCE – whether proposed evidence is beyond the scope of expert’s specialised knowledge and skill – whether the evidence substantially helps the Court – Evidence Act 2006 considered – given the technical nature of the health and safety issues to be considered in the case the threshold for admissibility is met for all paragraphs of the brief of evidence except for para 69 - Held, intended evidence is admissible apart from para 69 of the brief.

  9. [2015] NZEmpC 214 Goel v Director-General for Primary Industries [PDF, 135 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 214 Goel v Director-General for Primary Industries - (Judgment of Judge A D Ford, 2 December 2015). UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - no evidence of alleged managerial bullying or abuse of power – employees are required to carry out lawful and reasonable instructions given by their employers in the course of their duties – investigation process carried out into the misconduct allegations was exemplary – dismissal was a fair and reasonable option open to the employer – Held, dismissal was justifiable

  10. [2015] NZEmpC 209 Ale v Kids At Home Ltd [PDF, 145 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 209 Ale v Kids At Home Ltd (Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 1 December 2015)  RAISING GRIEVANCE OUT OF TIME – IMPLIED CONSENT – CORRECT FORUM FOR SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE – plaintiff alleged earlier event connected to later grievances raised within time – difference between discrete events and relevant background events – conduct implied consent – Authority did not dispose of whole claim – Court will not proceed to hear substantive claim

  11. [2015] NZEmpC 210 Allied Investments Ltd t/a Allied Security Ltd v Marriott [PDF, 214 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 210 Allied Investments Ltd t/a Allied Security Ltd v Marriott, (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 1 December 2015). CHALLENGE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – circumstances were not so serious that a fair and reasonable employer could conclude serious misconduct – there were reasonable alternative options to dismissal – dismissal was not a decision a fair and reasonable employer could have undertaken in all the circumstances – a fair process was not followed - Held, personal grievance for unjustified dismissal upheld – compensation for lost wages – compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings – reduction of 10 per cent for contributory conduct – costs reserved.

  12. [2015] NZEmpC 212 Go Bus Transport Ltd v Hellyer interlocutory [PDF, 99 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 212 Go Bus Transport Ltd v Hellyer interlocutory (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 1 December 2015). STAY OF ORDERS – Stay sought in relation to determination of unjustified dismissal and ordered payment of lost wages, reimbursement for holiday pay and KiwiSaver contributions, compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings and interest – whether applicant’s right of challenge would be ineffectual if no stay granted – financial difficulties meant there could be difficulty recovering monies - successful litigant should receive awards obtained - challenge brought in good faith – Held, application for stay granted on terms until further order of Court – monies to be paid by applicant into Court.

  13. [2015] NZEmpC 213 Kirby v New Zealand China Friendship Society [PDF, 78 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 213 Kirby v New Zealand China Friendship Society (Costs Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 1 December 2015). ISSUE AS TO COSTS – plaintiff asserts order for costs was inappropriate – whether costs were reasonably incurred – starting point of 66 per cent of costs reasonably incurred – whether factors justify an increase or decrease from that starting point – no evidence to support the serious allegations alleged by the plaintiff – Held, 66 per cent of actual legal costs incurred is fair and reasonable – disbursements were also reasonable and were allowed.