Search Results

1. [2015] NZEmpC 29 Hall v Dionex Pty Ltd [pdf, 330 KB]

   ...had. [48] I apprehend that Mr Erickson’s submissions on this aspect of the claim are founded on s 103A(5) of the Act. It provides that: The Authority or the court must not determine a dismissal or an action to be unjustifiable under this section solely because of defects in the process followed by the employer if the defects were— (a) minor; and (b) did not result in the employee being treated unfairly. [49] I do not consider that the defects in process, including defec...

2. [2018] NZEmpC 123 Roach v Nazareth Care Charitable Trust Board [pdf, 567 KB]

   ...summarised in the proposition that his employment agreement as General Manager could not lawfully contain a trial provision because, when it was signed, he fell within the exclusion created by the definition of “employee” in s 67A(3). That section, in conjunction with s 67A(1), precludes a trial provision where an employee has been “previously employed” by the employer. He contended that, having signed the Business Manager’s employment agreement, he was someone who had b...

3. [2017] NZEmpC 128 ALA v ITE [pdf, 242 KB]

   ALA v ITE NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2017] NZEmpC 128 [26 October 2017] THERE IS AN ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES AND ANY INFORMATION LEADING TO THE PARTIES’ IDENTITY IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2017] NZEmpC 128 EMPC 218/2017 IN THE MATTER OF an application for sanctions BETWEEN ALA Plaintiff AND ITE Defendant Hearing: 17 October 2017 (heard at Tauranga) Appearances: M Ward-Johnson, counsel fo...

4. [2020] NZEmpC 10 Holland v OCS Ltd [pdf, 291 KB]

   ...in the Authority until 5 October 2018; that delay was nearly five years after her employer rejected her personal grievance claim. [4] In dismissing Ms Holland’s claim the Authority applied s 114(6) of the Employment Relations Act 2000. That section reads: (6) No action may be commenced in the Authority or the court in relation to a personal grievance more than 3 years after the date on which the personal grievance was raised in accordance with this section. [5] The Authority...

5. [2011] NZEmpC 128 McKean v Ports of Auckland Ltd [pdf, 130 KB]

   GRAHAM MCKEAN V PORTS OF AUCKLAND LIMITED NZEmpC AK [2011] NZEmpC 128 [12 October 2011] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2011] NZEmpC 128 ARC 72/11 IN THE MATTER OF proceedings removed from the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for interim reinstatement BETWEEN GRAHAM MCKEAN Plaintiff AND PORTS OF AUCKLAND LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 7 October 2011 (Heard at Auckland) Counsel: Simon Mitchell, counsel...

6. [2021] NZEmpC 183 Stenhouse v Towman Towing Group Ltd [pdf, 303 KB]

   ...representation.16 [14] Towman confined its challenge to the Authority’s conclusion that a personal grievance had arisen because of the circumstances in which Ms Stenhouse worked 7 Employment Relations Act 2000, ss 179(1) and (179(3)(b). 8 Section 123(1)(b). 9 Section 128. 10 Section 128. 11 Section 123(1)(c)(i). 12 Section 4. 13 Section 130(2). 14 Section 4(1)(b); particulars of the behaviour alleged to have misled or deceived were not pleaded. 15 Interest on Money Cl...

7. [2025] NZEmpC 212 Kamo Landscape & Quarry Supplies Limited v Caswell [pdf, 257 KB]

   ...Caswell is understandably concerned about the prejudice this may cause if Kamo is unsuccessful in its challenge. However, procedural errors and omissions in relation to timetabling directions are insufficient to justify dismissing the proceedings. Section 179 of the Act confers an absolute right to challenge determinations of the Authority, although Mr Caswell will 23 At [33] (footnotes omitted). inevitably face some hardship if the challenge is permitted without any se...

8. [2012] NZEmpC 124 Allen v C3 Ltd [pdf, 256 KB]

   MARK ALLEN V C3 LIMITED NZEmpC AK [2012] NZEmpC 124 [31 July 2012] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2012] NZEmpC 124 ARC 94/11 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN MARK ALLEN Plaintiff AND C3 LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 5 and 6 June 2012 (Heard at Auckland) Counsel: W Nabney and R Nabney, counsel for plaintiff M Sharp, counsel for defendant Judgment: 31 July 2012 JUDGMENT O

9. [2021] NZEmpC 81 Thermo Fisher Scientific New Zealand v Dimoline [pdf, 171 KB]

   ...connection test will be carried out before the hearing. [5] The defendant does not oppose an order being made, provided Mr Steyn has access to the electronic bundle of documents. The plaintiff has said it will ensure this is the case. [6] Section 5 of the Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010 provides criteria to apply when such an application is made. Those criteria include the nature of the proceeding; the availability and quality of the technology that would be used; the...

10. [2021] NZEmpC 65 Shah Enterprise NZ Ltd v A Labour Inspector [pdf, 191 KB]

    ...visa expires in June 2021. At this stage, if Mr Maradiya is required to return to India, it is unlikely that he would be able to gain entry permission into New Zealand for the hearing. [4] The plaintiffs do not oppose this application. [5] Section 5 of the Courts (Remote Participation) Act provides criteria to apply when such an application is made. That criteria includes the nature of the proceeding, the availability and quality of the technology that would be used, the poten...