Search Results

1. Employment Court cases scheduled for 29 September 2025 to 10 October 2025 [pdf, 127 KB]

   ...queries, please contact the relevant Court Registry. THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA HEARINGS IN PERSON OR VIA REMOTE PARTICIPATION* 29 September 2025 – 10 October 2025 LOCATION DATE JUDGE(S) MATTER CASE REPRESENTATION Courtroom 5.01, Wellington District Court, Balance Street, Wellington Tuesday, 30 September 2025 9.30 am Wednesday, 1 October 2025 9.30 am Judge Beck Application for judicial review...

2. [2012] NZEmpC 119 LI v Huang [pdf, 57 KB]

   ...entitled to have the orders of the Authority enforced unless a stay of proceedings is granted. The power of the Court to grant a stay under s 180 is discretionary and the overriding consideration in the exercise of the discretion is the interests of justice. [11] Mr Huang initially strongly opposed the stay application. He claimed that he will not be deported by Immigration New Zealand and that his visa does not expire until May 2013. He also claimed that funds recovered under...

3. CAC10056 v Ferguson [2013] NZREADT 30 [pdf, 22 KB]

   ...had a distinguished real estate career ...” [7] We do understand the hardship for the defendant to which he referred. The defendant then stressed that he took these charges seriously but seemed to be saying that he has been denied the truth of matters. He states that the process of this case has taken a massive toll on him and his family. He puts it that “we simply do not have the funds to fight the process or take action against those that have provided false statements to take p...

4. [2016] NZEmpC 46 Ngawharau v Porirua Whanau Centre [pdf, 72 KB]

   IRITANA HOROWAI NGAWHARAU v THE PORIRUA WHANAU CENTRE TRUST NZEmpC WELLINGTON [2016] NZEmpC 46 [2 May 2016] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON [2016] NZEmpC 46 EMPC 14/2014 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN IRITANA HOROWAI NGAWHARAU Plaintiff AND THE PORIRUA WHANAU CENTRE TRUST Defendant Hearing: (on the papers by submissions filed on 1 July and 14 December 2015)...

5. [2014] NZEmpC 52 Ryan v Bryan [pdf, 62 KB]

   ...and Ms Bryan obtains a compliance order from the Authority or pursues other enforcement mechanisms against Mr Ryan, his challenge to the Authority’s determination may become effectively academic. [9] In these circumstances, the interests of justice require that an interim order staying execution or other enforcement of the Authority’s determination of 19 December 2013 is made. This will be as follows. [10] Until further order of the Court, Chanelle Bryan is not to commence...

6. BORA Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill [pdf, 280 KB]

   ...respect of the interpretation and implementation of the Deed of Settlement or the Settlement legislation. 4 7.Legislative determination ought not conventionally to fall within the scope of judicial review. 5 However to the extent that any excluded matters could be susceptible to judicial review, the relevant clauses constitute a justified limit on the right affirmed by s 27 (2) of the Bill of Rights Act. Excluding subsequent challenge is a legitimate incident of the negotiated settlem...

7. [2018] NZEmpC 23 Propellor Property Investments Ltd v Elsegood [pdf, 135 KB]

   ...exercised judicially and according to principle. I note two key principles. There must be evidence before the Court justifying the exercise of the discretion. The overriding consideration in the exercise of the discretion must be the interests of justice. 2 North Dunedin Holdings Ltd v Harris [2011] NZEmpC 118. [9] When the Court comes to consider exercising its discretion under s 180 there are seven considerations that h...

8. BORA Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill [pdf, 286 KB]

   ...than in respect of the interpretation and implementation of the deed of settlement or the Act. 7. Legislative determination of a claim would not conventionally fall within the scope of judicial review [3]. However, to the extent that any excluded matters could be susceptible to judicial review, cl 14 constitutes a justified limit on the right affirmed by s 27(2) of the Bill of Rights Act [4]. Excluding subsequent challenge is a legitimate incident of the negotiated settlement of claims...

9. [2020] NZEmpC 47 Sawyer v The Vice-Chancellor of Victoria University of Wellington [pdf, 337 KB]

   ...incurred by him after the Court’s judgment on the preliminary issue was released. Costs up to that stage have been dealt with.3 [5] The Court has a discretion in relation to costs.4 That discretion must be exercised in the interests of justice and in accordance with established principles. Since January 2016 the discretion has been assisted by a Guideline Scale.5 It is intended to support, as far as possible, the policy objective that fixing costs should be predictable, ex...

10. [2022] NZEmpC 191 McDermott v Employment Relations Authority [pdf, 172 KB]

    ...empowered to order any party to a proceeding to pay any other party such costs and expenses as are considered reasonable. [4] A costs award is discretionary. That discretion must, however, be exercised on a principled basis and in the interests of justice. The primary principles to apply in exercising that discretion are that costs follow the event and the unsuccessful party is to make a reasonable contribution to the costs incurred by the successful party.2 [5] The power confer...