New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Constructive dismissal

Legal area

Court

29 Aug 2019

CAROLINE ANN SAWYER v VICE-CHANCELLOR OF VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON [2019] NZHC 2149

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2149
Court

High Court

The High Court struck out the plaintiff's claims against the Vice-Chancellor and his lawyer because the certificated ROS and prior determinations by the Employment Relations Authority and Employment Court are final and binding under the Employment Relations Act, the pleaded claims either have been or should have been litigated in the exclusive employment jurisdiction (so continuation here is an abuse of process), the lawyer defendant did not assume a personal duty to the plaintiff so those claims could not stand, and the High Court proceedings also improperly sought to relitigate matters that…
10 Aug 2018

RAMKISSOON v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2018] NZCA 304

Citation

[2018] NZCA 304
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the Employment Court did not err: the Ōpōtiki non-appointment events were not pleaded as part of the constructive dismissal claim and were properly treated as background; because termination occurred after 1 April 2011 the amended s 103A and s 125 tests applied to the dismissal claim; answers to both certified questions are No.
5 Dec 2017

RAMKISSOON v THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2017] NZCA 558

Citation

[2017] NZCA 558
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court granted leave to appeal on two discrete legal questions: whether the Employment Court erred by failing to treat the Opotiki non-appointment events as a relevant consideration and whether the Employment Court erred in applying ss 103A and 125 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 to the unjustified dismissal grievance; the Court declined leave on additional grounds (rehabilitation, constructive dismissal, untenable factual findings, and delay) because they did not meet the s 214(3) threshold.
23 Oct 2014

N Z CARDS LIMITED v RAMSAY CA424/2012 [2014] NZCA 512

Citation

[2014] NZCA 512
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant company failed to comply with clear Court of Appeal directions requiring representation by counsel and failed to appear at the allocated fixture; non-compliance and non-appearance justified dismissal and leave to appeal does not excuse compliance with representation orders.
22 Jul 2014

MORGAN V WHANGANUI COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES CA498/2013 [2014] NZCA 340

Citation

[2014] 3 NZLR 713
Court

Court of Appeal

Without prejudice protection applied to the communications because there was a serious employment relationship problem that could give rise to litigation and the communications were made confidentially in connection with settlement; Bayliss Sharr's narrower test was disapproved; no exception (constructive dismissal, unlawful threat or blackmail) was established to defeat privilege, so the Employment Court was correct to uphold exclusion of the communications.
27 Nov 2013

MORGAN v WHANGANUI COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES CA498/2013 [2013] NZCA 587

Citation

[2013] NZCA 587
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was granted because the identified question of law—concerning the scope of legal professional privilege and its exceptions in the employment context, including potential inconsistency with Bayliss Sharr and the relevance of privileged communications to constructive dismissal—required appellate determination.
28 Jun 2012

NEW ZEALAND CARDS LIMITED V COLIN RAMSAY COA CA247/2012

Citation

COA CA247/2012
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was granted limited to the single question whether the facts as found by the Employment Court could amount to a constructive dismissal under s 4(1A) of the Employment Relations Act 2000; time to seek leave was extended on strict filing and service conditions; the stay of execution was adjourned pending affidavits on capacity to pay and security; lay representation for the company was refused and the appeal will not proceed unless the company is legally represented; costs reserved.
25 May 2012

BLACK V GILTECH PRECISION CASTINGS (2004) LIMITED HC DUN CIV-2010-412-000105

Citation

openlaw-3b51dca2_585b_4c87_ac2c_306c621d210f.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff had agreed to the five‑year requirement and the terms recorded in Schedule 6; the drafts recorded that agreement; the defendants acted in accordance with that binding agreement (and estoppel); their conduct was not oppressive under s174; all causes of action failed and judgment was entered for the defendants.
19 Aug 2010

BLUESTAR PRINT GROUP (NZ) LTD V DAVID MITCHELL CA CA504/2009

Citation

openlaw-ed769ec4_a55d_45dc_b286_99efc40e9259.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Employment Court erred in law by disregarding the Calderbank offer and by finding abandonment of the exemplary damages claim; regulation 68(1) and the High Court Rules require that reasonable Calderbank offers be given effect in costs assessments even in employment cases where vindication is a factor, and therefore the costs order against the appellant was quashed.
28 May 2009

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE V HAWKINS CA CA397/2008

Citation

openlaw-80523f62_d77a_403b_aa3e_df665b752d3c.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Employer need not expressly turn its mind to the 90-day limit; consent to a late personal grievance can be implied from conduct and need not always be pleaded by the employee; voluntary disengagement under Police Act s28D does not automatically bar a personal grievance for constructive dismissal; where constructive dismissal is proved reinstatement and awards for loss of income and humiliation are available at the Court's discretion.