New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Victimisation

Legal area

Court

9 Sept 2015

FEHLING v APPLEBY [2015] NZCA 428

Citation

[2015] NZCA 428
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for special leave was dismissed because the proposed grounds did not raise a question of law appropriate for consideration by this Court under s124(3); a Privacy Act breach does not by itself constitute a Human Rights Act breach; and the applicant's challenges were predominantly factual matters decided by the Tribunal and upheld by the High Court and therefore not proper subjects for special leave.
6 Mar 2015

FEHLING v APPLEBY [2015] NZHC 388

Citation

[2015] NZHC 388
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the contested matters were either factual determinations or not questions of law capable of bona fide and serious argument and did not raise issues of sufficient general or public importance; specifically, Privacy Act victimisation is not actionable under s66 HRA and the Tribunal's conclusions on link and intent were reasonable on the evidence.
5 Feb 2015

FEHLING v APPLEBY [2015] NZHC 75

Citation

[2015] NZHC 75
Court

High Court

Appeal dismissed. Privacy Act victimisation is not actionable per se under s 66 HRA; unlawful discrimination under s 42 and indirect discrimination under s 65 do not require proof of specific subjective intent to discriminate but do require some material or evidential link between the prohibited ground and the impugned conduct; the Tribunal did not err in its approach or conclusions on the facts and its credibility-based findings were reasonable.
14 Jun 2007

TALLEYS FISHERIES LIMITED V CAITLIN LEWIS AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2005-485-1750

Citation

openlaw-eaf7aac1_d75b_477a_afd3_94a1d6098c6b.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court held that, objectively assessed, hoki filleting and trimming are substantially similar work for the purposes of s22(1)(b); Ms Lewis was allocated to the lower‑paid trimmer role because of her sex and therefore suffered unlawful discrimination; the Tribunal's separate finding that Mr Edwards was victimised by non‑reappointment under s66 is upheld; the delay in the Tribunal's decision was regrettable but did not vitiate the proceedings.

New Zealand Case Law

FEHLING v APPLEBY [2015] NZCA 428

FEHLING v APPLEBY [2015] NZHC 388

FEHLING v APPLEBY [2015] NZHC 75

TALLEYS FISHERIES LIMITED V CAITLIN LEWIS AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2005-485-1750