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

3032 items matching your search terms

  1. [2022] NZEmpC 149 Halse v Employment Relations Authority [PDF, 250 KB]

    [2022] NZEmpC 149 Halse v Employment Relations Authority (Judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 18 August 2022) APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT JUDICIAL REVIEW – premature at this stage to say directions are not judicially reviewable – application is an abuse of process - judicial review of removal determination has no reasonably arguable cause of action – judicial review would be vexatious if not struck out for other grounds - application granted.

  2. [2022] NZEmpC 145 Pilgrim v Attorney-General [PDF, 940 KB]

    [2022] NZEmpC 145 Pilgrim v Attorney-General (Interlocutory Judgment (No 6) of Judge B A Corkill, 18 August 2022) APPLICATION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - relevance - scandalous - prejudicial - hearsay - opinion - whether evidence might undermine criminal proceedings and fair trial rights - relevance of evidence best determined after all evidence has been heard - scandalous nature of evidence is insufficient by itself to justify exclusion - application partially granted as per schedule.

  3. [2022] NZEmpC 141 E Tū Inc and ors v Carter Holt Harvey LVL Ltd [PDF, 356 KB]

    [2022] NZEmpC 141 E Tū Inc and ors v Carter Holt Harvey LVL Ltd (Judgment of the Full Court, 15 August 2022) MATTER REMOVED FROM EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY – Holidays Act 2003, ss 18 and 19 – annual holidays directed to be taken during COVID-19 Alert Level 4 lockdown – whether “unable to reach agreement” – no attempt to engage with individual plaintiffs or union –  cannot say defendant was unable to reach agreement – section 19(1)(a) Holidays Act did not apply – STANDING – E Tū may represent members concerning individual rights but that does not extend to bringing present proceeding in its own name – union does not have standing.

  4. [2022] NZEmpC 140 Wiles v The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Auckland [PDF, 222 KB]

    [2022] NZEmpC 140 Wiles v The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Auckland (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 9 August 2022) AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM – EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY – statement of claim permitted to be amended – particulars updated – no new causes of action added – expert opinion evidence admissible – evidence of law and interpretation of contracts inadmissible – permission given to re-file brief of evidence.

  5. [2022] NZEmpC 136 The Board of Trustees of Southland Boys High School v Jackson [PDF, 248 KB]

    [2022] NZEmpC 136 The Board of Trustees of Southland Boys High School v Jackson (Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 2 August 2022) NON-DE NOVO CHALLENGE – redundancy – remedies – long service payments made – Authority also awarded reimbursement of lost wages – true character of long service payment pivotal – Authority erred in not considering long service payment – not unreasonable to decide against supernumerary employment and not apply for other roles at the school in circumstances – error did not affect award ultimately made.

  6. [2022] NZEmpC 134 CultureSafe NZ Ltd v Employment Relations Authority [PDF, 211 KB]

    [2022] NZEmpC 134 CultureSafe NZ Ltd v Employment Relations Authority (Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 1 August 2022) APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW –Employment Relations Act 2000, s 236 – Authority determined CultureSafe had not established authority to represent – Authority administratively closed file – Authority had jurisdiction to consider question of authority to represent – application declined. 

  7. [2022] NZEmpC 131 Farrand Orchards Ltd v Tane [PDF, 342 KB]

    [2022] NZEmpC 131 Farrand Orchards Ltd v Tane (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 27 July 2022) PERSONAL GRIEVANCE – NON-DE NOVO CHALLENGE - 90-day trial period – parties did not agree on a 90-day trial period when employment was initially offered – employee did not notice the 90-day trial period in the employment agreement and it was not pointed out to him – work began before execution of written employment agreement containing 90-day trial period – estoppel claim was not raised in the Authority and cannot be subject of non-de novo challenge – trial period was invalid – challenge dismissed.