Search Results

1. [2011] NZEmpC 48 Clear v Waikato DHB [pdf, 201 KB]

   ...finding in [143] of the Employment Court decision: „In light of the finding that Ms Clear‟s illness was significantly if not totally caused by the DHB‟s breach of duty to her in respect of the complaints which she made to it awards under sections 123(1)(b) and (c) are justified.‟ [17] The case for the defendant was advanced by Mr Bevan under two limbs. First, counsel submitted that the Court “is required to separate out the loss flowing from the plaintiff‟s pre-existi...

2. [2010] NZEmpC 72 Horton v Fonterra Cooperative Group Ltd [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...issue in the case was whether the plaintiff was told to obtain the authorisation of Mr Barnes and whether he wilfully and 1 [2009] ERNZ 185. 2 (1983) ERNZ Sel Cas 59. 3 [1998] 3 ERNZ 128. intentionally ignored that instruction. He submitted that the evidence available to Fonterra at the time did not support the assertion that the plaintiff was required to obtain authorisation from Mr Barnes. There were only t...

3. [2024] NZEmpC 213 Cronin-Lampe v Minister of Education Interlocutory (No 5) [pdf, 336 KB]

   ...Cronin-Lampe, which I will describe shortly. Legal framework [27] Both parties presented their cases with reference to the standard principles governing stay applications. These are well established and may be summarised briefly. [28] Section 214(6) of the Act provides that neither an application for leave to appeal nor an appeal operates as a stay of proceedings on the decision to which the application or appeal relates unless the Court or the Court of Appeal so orders....

4. [2011] NZEmpC 26 Benge and others v Air New Zealand [pdf, 259 KB]

   WILLIAM MICHAEL BENGE V AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED NZEmpC AK [2011] NZEmpC 26 [29 March 2011] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2011] NZEmpC 26 ARC 95/09 IN THE MATTER OF proceedings removed from the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for further and better particulars BETWEEN WILLIAM MICHAEL BENGE First Plaintiff AND KENNETH CARRAN MACLEAN FINLAYSON Second Plaintiff AND PETER MATTHEWS Third Plaintiff AND MAR

5. [2015] NZEmpC 157 Labour Inspector v Cypress Villas Ltd full court [pdf, 515 KB]

   LABOUR INSPECTOR (MELISSA ANN MACRURY) v CYPRESS VILLAS LIMITED NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2015] NZEmpC 157 [16 September 2015] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2015] NZEmpC 157 ARC 31/14 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN LABOUR INSPECTOR (MELISSA ANN MACRURY) Plaintiff AND CYPRESS VILLAS LIMITED Defendant AND BARRY EDWARD BRILL Proposed Second Defendant Hearing: 1

6. [2016] NZEmpC 23 Banks v Hockey Manawatu Inc [pdf, 235 KB]

   WARREN NEWETT BANKS v HOCKEY MANAWATU INCORPORATED NZEmpC WELLINGTON [2016] NZEmpC 23 [21 March 2016] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON [2016] NZEmpC 23 EMPC 206/2015 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN WARREN NEWETT BANKS Plaintiff AND HOCKEY MANAWATU INCORPORATED Defendant Hearing: 3, 4, 5, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 February and 1, 2, 3 and 4 March 2016 (heard a

7. [2019] NZEmpC 144 CBA v ONM [pdf, 577 KB]

   CBA v ONM [2019] NZEmpC 144 [15 October 2019] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2019] NZEmpC 144 EMPC 70/2019 IN THE MATTER OF proceedings removed in full from the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN CBA Plaintiff AND ONM Defendant Hearing: 13 August 2019 (heard at Wellington) Appearances: S Henderson and D O’Leary, counsel for C

8. [2019] NZEmpC 113 Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories Ltd v Scott [pdf, 576 KB]

   GENESYS TELECOMMUNICATIONS LABORATORIES LIMITED v BRENDON SCOTT [2019] NZEmpC 113 [30 August 2019] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU [2019] NZEmpC 113 EMPC 274/2019 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER of an application for a stay of execution BETWEEN GENESYS TELECOMMUNICATIONS LABORATORIES LIMITED

9. [2017] NZEmpC 127 South Canterbury District Health Board v Sanderson [pdf, 709 KB]

   SOUTH CANTERBURY DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD v STUART SANDERSON NZEmpC CHRISTCHURCH [2017] NZEmpC 127 [20 October 2017] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2017] NZEmpC 127 EMPC 82/2017 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN SOUTH CANTERBURY DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD Plaintiff AND STUART SANDERSON First Defendant AND SARAH SANDERSON Second Defendant AND DIANE

10. [2016] NZEmpC 95 Pretorius v Marra Construction (2004) Ltd [pdf, 270 KB]

    ...necessary for prosecuting the claim had come into existence by 3 March 2008. b) Because it was possible that liability for a bonus payment would not crystallise until the joint venture project concluded, the bonus claim was not time-barred. c) Section 11B(2) was a potentially applicable provision of the MW Act; Mr Pretorius was not time-barred from pursuing a claim under that 1 Pretorius v Marra Construction (2004) Ltd [2015] N...