Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

[2020] NZEmpC 109 McCook v Chief Executive of the Inland Revenue Department (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 27 July 2020) CHALLENGE TO OBJECTION AS TO DISCLOSURE – objections to documents were on grounds of relevance, confidentiality, and oppressiveness – confidential documents to be disclosed only to counsel – some documents irrelevant – while search of documents may be difficult, materials should be disclosed - APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS AS TO REPRESENTATION – plaintiffs apply to represent 36 other persons – inquiry will be fact-specific – insufficient commonality of interest -  representative approach is not justified.

[2020] NZEmpC 107 Appleyard v CoreLogic NZ Ltd (Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 23 July 2020) TRIAL PERIOD – whether notice was properly given – letter stated termination would occur “effective immediately” but also provided payment in lieu of notice – only reasonable interpretation is that one week’s notice was provided – no personal grievance available.

[2020] NZEmpC 105 Ceres New Zealand LLC v DJK (Interlocutory Judgment of Chief Judge C Inglis, 15 July 2020) APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO HEAR EVIDENCE AT A DISTANCE – witness resides in Florida and travel is difficult because of COVID-19 – application is not opposed – application granted.

[2020] NZEmpC 103 Ashby v NIWA Vessel Management Ltd (Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 13 July 2020) APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE A CHALLENGE – challenge was 10 days out of time – justification provided for delay – no prejudice to respondent – merits somewhat questionable - leave granted.

[2020] NZEmpC 101 McNabb v Silver Fern Farms Ltd (Interlocutory Judgment (No 4) of Judge J C Holden, 10 July 2020) ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE – DISCLOSURE – employer sought copies of proceedings in Family Court relating to employee – disclosure would be in breach of Family Court Act 1980 – public interest in Family Court proceedings remaining confidential precludes disclosure.

[2020] NZEmpC 98 Tolson v Potter (Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 10 July 2020) PENALTIES – whether employer company’s director/shareholder should be personally liable for underpayment to employee – director did not assume personal responsibility – no proof of intentional action taken to aid or abet company’s breaches – no personal liability for director.

[2020] NZEmpC 97 Savrim v Wellington Hospitality Group Ltd (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 3 July 2020) APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO ADDUCE FURTHER EVIDENCE – inconsistency in evidence can be dealt with in submissions – some further evidence allowed.

[2020] NZEmpC 95 Rachelle v Air New Zealand Ltd (Costs Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 1 July 2020) COSTS – GUIDELINE SCALE – no grounds for opposing costs.

[2020] NZEmpC 93 Grigorovich v Precise Ltd (Costs Judgment of Chief Judge C Inglis, 1 July 2020) COSTS – GUIDELINE SCALE – applicant was not legally aided for this aspect of the proceedings.

[2020] NZEmpC 91 Dollar King Ltd v Jun (Judgment of Chief Judge C Inglis, 29 June 2020) PENALTIES – JURISDICTION – Authority imposed a penalty without application by any party – whether it had jurisdiction – statute expressly requires application from a party to impose a penalty – Authority did not have jurisdiction – determination set aside.

[2020] NZEmpC 89 Shalini Ltd v A Labour Inspector (Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 24 June 2020) PENALTIES – QUANTUM – Authority was correct that living in employer’s property increased vulnerability – Authority was correct about employer’s financial ability – Authority did not need to take into account parties’ agreement on penalties – challenge dismissed.

[2020] NZEmpC 87 Freeborn v Sfizio Ltd (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 18 June 2020) APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE A CHALLENGE – applicant reacted to discontinuance in a timely manner – no prejudice to respondent – overall justice favours granting leave.

[2020] NZEmpC 85 Labour Inspector v Cypress Villas Ltd (Costs Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 16 June 2020) COSTS – successful party was self-represented barrister and solicitor – Calderbank offer valid – no evidence to allow for increased costs – Labour Inspector has a strong obligation to pursue claim – no increase in costs – costs guideline scale applied.