New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Exclusive jurisdiction of employment relations authority

Legal area

Court

7 Dec 2023

TRACPLUS GLOBAL LIMITED v DEAKER [2023] NZHC 3573

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3573
Court

High Court

The High Court lacks jurisdiction because the dispute about access to and potential misuse of confidential information stems from former employment relationships and can be framed within s161 Employment Relations Act 2000 (including paras (a),(b),(f) and the catch-all (r)); FMV v TZB requires such matters to be determined by the Employment Relations Authority and a tort-only pleading does not avoid that exclusivity.
10 Aug 2022

FOSTER v WILSON [2022] NZHC 1955

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1955
Court

High Court

The High Court lacks jurisdiction under s161(3) ERA 2000 because the plaintiff's claims arise in the course of the employment relationship and constitute an employment relationship problem (primarily a personal grievance/unjustified dismissal or otherwise falling within s161(1)(r)); reliance on the Bill of Rights Act does not remove the matter from the Authority's exclusive jurisdiction.
3 Dec 2021

FUJIFILM BUSINESS INNOVATION NEW ZEALAND LTD v WHITTAKER [2021] NZHC 3292

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3292
Court

High Court

Leave to bring a second interlocutory application was refused because no special circumstances existed to justify revisiting a prior interlocutory decision: the Supreme Court's clarification in FMV v TZB did not undermine the earlier decision such as to displace finality, the applicants had previously litigated the issue with knowledge of the reserved judgment, and absent some extraneous or exceptional factor the court will not permit relitigation of interlocutory matters; recall was not justified on the facts.
20 Aug 2021

FMV v TZB [2021] NZSC 102

Citation

[2021] 1 NZLR 466
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that FMV's pleaded negligence claims arose from and related to her employment relationship and therefore constituted 'employment relationship problems' within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority under s161(1) ERA; the tort exception in s161(1)(r) applies only where a work‑related problem cannot be framed under any listed head in s161(1), and does not permit routine employment‑related tort claims to be pursued in the High Court when they can be addressed as personal grievances or other s161 heads; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the…
23 Oct 2019

EUREKLY LTD v CRIMSON CONSULTING LTD [2019] NZHC 2674

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2674
Court

High Court

The Court held the protest must be set aside because the essential character of the pleaded causes of action against the second defendant (breach of confidence and breach of fiduciary duty) is equitable/property based and independent of the employment relationship; there was no ongoing employment relationship to be supported and some remedies sought are not available in the Authority, therefore High Court jurisdiction is not displaced by s 161.
4 Jul 2019

FMV v TZB [2019] NZCA 282

Citation

[2019] NZAR 1385
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the High Court lacked jurisdiction over CIV 3267 because the claim directly and essentially concerned the employment relationship and therefore fell within the Authority's exclusive jurisdiction under s161 ERA; consequently strike out for want of jurisdiction was correct and the High Court suppression order should remain in effect given the Authority's prior suppression and the jurisdictional conclusion.
5 Nov 2018

DONOVAN GROUP NZ LIMITED v REID & ORS [2018] NZHC 2854

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2854
Court

High Court

The Court granted without‑notice interim injunctions and search and preservation orders because the plaintiff demonstrated a strongly arguable case in equity and tort against the defendants (serious questions to be tried), a real risk of destruction or loss of evidence and ongoing harm, damages would likely be inadequate, and the balance of convenience favoured preservation of evidence and restraint pending a hearing; the Court declined to rely on the contractual cause of action against the employee as the Employment Relations Authority may have exclusive jurisdiction over breaches of an indi…
13 Aug 2018

E E PORTEOUS v THE NATIONAL MUTUAL LIFE ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALASIA AND AMP LIFE LTD, LATITUDE FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD and MARSH LTD[2018] NZHC 2056

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2056
Court

High Court

The fifth cause of action was struck out because its gist directly and essentially concerned the employment relationship: the alleged implied term was to be implied into the employment contract, the rights asserted were derived from that contract, and therefore the claim fell within the Employment Relations Authority's exclusive jurisdiction under s 161 ERA 2000.
21 May 2018

FMV v TZB [2018] NZHC 1131

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1131
Court

High Court

The plaintiff's claims were essentially and directly about the employment relationship and thus fall within the Authority's exclusive jurisdiction under s161 ERA; the tort exception did not apply because the rights claimed derived from the employment relationship; alternatively the High Court proceeding duplicated the extant stayed Authority proceeding and was an abuse of process; accordingly the proceeding is struck out and the Authority's suppression order continued.
5 Jun 2014

MACLAB (NZ) LTD v P J WILSON [2014] NZHC 1242

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1242
Court

High Court

Where the duties alleged arise from the defendant's separate capacity as a director (fiduciary and statutory directors' duties) rather than from the employment contract, the High Court retains jurisdiction and the ERA does not have exclusive jurisdiction over those causes of action.