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

2228 items matching your search terms

  1. [2018] NZEmpC 154 TUV v WXY [PDF, 512 KB]

    [2018] NZEmpC 154 TUV v WXY (Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 18 December 2018) SECTION 149 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT – MENTAL INCAPACITY – whether s 149 prevents an agreement being invalidated for mental incapacity – purpose and legislative history of s 149 discussed – s 149 not unassailable – difference between protection of agreed terms and validity of agreement as a whole – employee was mentally incapable – employer did not know – no unconscionability – no duress – s 149 agreement not set aside – non-publication orders – public interest in parties’ identities – agreement for confidentiality relevant but not decisive – defendant name to be published but plaintiff not.

  2. [2018] NZEmpC 151 Ovation New Zealand Ltd v The New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union Inc [PDF, 1.3 MB]

    [2018] NZEmpC 151 Ovation New Zealand Ltd v The New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union Inc (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 17 December 2018) PIECE WORK - REST BREAKS – WHETHER DONNING AND DOFFING IS WORK - case law considered – S 69ZD(3) starting-point –entitlement to be paid – Part 6D does not specify means or method – incorporating paid rest breaks into piece rates is lawful – onus on employer to establish rest breaks paid at correct rate - no evidence paid rest breaks included in CEA or historically – no compliance with statutory requirement – donning and doffing time is work, currently not paid – any remedies must be specifically pleaded.

  3. [2018] NZEmpC 138 Samuels v Employment Relations Authority [PDF, 295 KB]

    [2018] NZEmpC 138 Samuels v Employment Relations Authority (Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 21 November 2018) STANDING TO BRING JUDICIAL REVIEW – interpretation of s 184(1) and s 184(1A) – whether breach of natural justice grounds for judicial review – approach to ouster clauses considered – David and Parker considered – Parker distinguished – plaintiff has standing -challenge not possible – judicial review can be brought for alleged breach of natural justice where other avenues are closed.

  4. [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.