New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unjustified dismissal

Legal area

Court

3 Nov 2022

SHARMA v FOSTER-BOHM [2022] NZHC 2871

Citation

(2022) 19 NZELR 376
Court

High Court

The District Court judgment was correct: the unjustified dismissal grievance was time-barred on the facts (termination dated 7 August 2015), Ms Sharma was negligent in failing to ensure the grievance was filed or to seek an extension or advise independent advice once she became aware of the risk, the respondents suffered compensable loss assessed as loss of a chance (court assessed a 75% chance and awarded damages accordingly), and the respondents validly cancelled the retainer such that they were not obliged to pay for negligently rendered legal services under ss 42–43 CCLA; the High Court d…
14 Oct 2022

ANA SHAW v BAY OF PLENTY DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2022] NZSC 117

Citation

[2022] NZSC 117
Court

Supreme Court

Extension of time to apply for leave was granted because the applicant applied within 20 working days of the Court of Appeal decision, but leave to appeal was dismissed because the matters raised were questions of fact specific to the case, did not involve errors of law or issues of general or public importance, and there was no risk of miscarriage of justice; the applicant was ordered to pay costs of $2,500.
13 Jun 2022

SHAW v BAY OF PLENTY DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2022] NZCA 241

Citation

[2022] NZCA 241
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal declined because the proposed grounds largely challenge factual findings of the Employment Court (that no personal grievance was raised within the statutory period and that dismissal for patient privacy breaches was justifiable under s103A) and do not raise questions of law of sufficient general or public importance to warrant this Court's intervention.
11 Mar 2022

GREEN v GILLETTE [2022] NZCA 49

Citation

[2022] NZCA 49
Court

Court of Appeal

The strike-out application was dismissed because the delays had been examined and explained in the Court's recall judgment, the appellant was not in continuing default of procedural directions, striking out for lack of diligence would conflict with the recall decision permitting the appeal to proceed, and although the appeal's prospects are weak it is not frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process since it is not certain to fail.
3 Sept 2021

SAIPE v BETHELL (ALSO KNOWN AS TRUDE JEAN BETHELL-PAICE) [2021] NZCA 429 [3 September 2021]

Citation

[2021] NZCA 429
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was declined because the proposed primary question of law did not raise an issue of general or public importance suitable for the Court of Appeal, the Employment Court correctly found the dismissal was effective on 24 August 2013 and the personal grievance was raised on 26 August 2013 so the claim filed on 29 August 2016 was outside the three year limitation, and the repudiation/affirmation argument could not be entertained on appeal where it was not pleaded or determined below.
12 Aug 2020

HONG v CHEVRON TRAFFIC SERVICES LIMITED [2020] NZCA 339

Citation

[2020] NZCA 339
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was declined because there was no question of law of sufficient general or public importance: the Employment Court's finding that summary dismissal was justified was supported by overwhelming evidence and a proper investigation, the disputed employment/hours and holiday payment issues were resolved by the Authority and any errors were unintentional and remedied, and the Employment Court's jurisdictional error on good faith was harmless given the evidence that no breach occurred.
8 Jun 2020

ZHANG v TELCO ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED [2020] NZCA 223

Citation

[2020] NZCA 223
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time to file leave applications was granted due to genuine reasons for delay; however none of the proposed grounds of appeal raised a question of law of sufficient general or public importance to merit leave under s214 ERA; factual findings and discretionary assessments by the Employment Court (including counter-factual under s128, penalties under ss4A and 135, contributory reduction under s124, and costs assessment) did not disclose arguable questions of law; accordingly leave to appeal the substantive and costs judgments is dismissed.
3 Mar 2020

RAPPONGI EXCURSIONS LIMITED v FERNANDEZ [2020] NZCA 37

Citation

[2020] NZCA 37
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was declined because the issues advanced were not questions of law of sufficient general or public importance but primarily factual or within the Employment Court's discretion; the Employment Court permissibly included legal costs in the final accounting under s 123(1)(c)(ii) and the notice award was within judicial discretion.
22 Nov 2018

UNDERHILL & ANOR v COCA-COLA AMATIL (NZ) LIMITED [2018] NZCA 521

Citation

[2018] NZCA 521
Court

Court of Appeal

An extension of time was granted and leave to appeal was granted because the stated questions are questions of law of general importance appropriate for determination by the Court of Appeal.
9 Aug 2018

ASLAM v TRANSPORTATION AUCKLAND CORPORATION LIMITED [2018] NZCA 301

Citation

[2018] NZCA 301
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was declined because the asserted errors were either factual findings or issues confined to the parties that did not raise questions of law of general or public importance; the Employment Court did not err in holding the employer's investigation and process were fair and in the range of what a fair and reasonable employer could do under s103A.