Decisions of Note 2012
Decisions of Note "From time to time the Court decides cases that have general importance for practitioners of employment law as well as for the particular parties. These will include some judgments of the full Court and others examining and applying new law.
Decisions of Note 2012
"From time to time the Court decides cases that have general importance for practitioners of employment law as well as for the particular parties. These will include some judgments of the full Court and others examining and applying new law.
Decisions of Note for previous years. 2011, 2010, 2009, pre 2009,
Decisions of Note 2012
*Mayne v Polychem Marketing Ltd [2012] NZEmpC 60 [Chief Judge Colgan, 18 April 2012] -Successful challenge. Plaintiff's contract contained clause providing continued health benefits and insurance after he left employment in 1990. Plaintiff claimed employer breached employment contract when it stopped health benefits in November 2009. Authority found no jurisdiction to consider claim. Court held Authority and Court had jurisdiction to consider if employer had breached ongoing term of employment contract. (PDF 105KB)
*Foai v Air New Zealand Ltd [2012] NZEmpC 57 [Judge Ford, 4 April 2012] -
Successful challenge. Plaintiff overpaid by defendant for 16 months. Defendant made claim in restitution for repayment. Plaintiff queried his pay on several occasions but overpayments were not corrected. Court held that defendant had not made out a mistake of fact needed for its claim of unjust enrichment to succeed. In addition, both defences advanced by the plaintiff successful. Equitable defence of change of position succeeds as the plaintiff, in good faith, changed his position in a way that would be inequitable to now order repayment. And plaintiff's s 94B Judicature Act 1908 defence succeeds because plaintiff, in good faith, altered his position in reliance on the validity of the payments and, having regard to the equities, it would be inequitable to compel repayment.(PDF 264KB)
*Carter Holt Harvey Limited v McAuley [2012] NZEmpC 48 [Chief Judge Colgan, 14 March 2012]- Successful challenge to an Authority determination. Court held defendant not unjustifiably disadvantaged. Authority misinterpreted s 66 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 by requiring the plaintiff to meet a test of sufficient specificity which is not only absent from the section but adds a gloss to it that is contrary to its scheme. When the correct s 66 test was applied to the fixed-term agreements, either or both tests were satisfied. Plaintiff awarded costs. (PDF 134KB)
*White & Others v Reserve Bank of New Zealand [2012] NZEmpC 20 [Judge Ford,17 February 2012]- Descriptor: Removal from Authority. Unsuccessful claim by plaintiffs that the defendant failed to fulfil its obligation to periodically review and adjust the employee superable salary percentage, despite a contractual undertaking to do so. Court held that defendant was not under any contractual obligation to regularly review and adjust the superable salary percentage. Defendant entitled to costs. (PDF 147KB)
