New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Employment relationship problem

Legal area

Court

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.
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.
30 Jan 2014

THE HIBERNIAN CATHOLIC BENEFIT SOCIETY v HAGAI [2014] NZHC 24

Citation

(2014) 11 NZELR 534
Court

High Court

The High Court lacked jurisdiction because the society's claim for recovery of funds stolen by its employee arose out of and related to the employment relationship and therefore fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority under s161 of the Employment Relations Act 2000; equitable and restitutionary remedies arising from the employment relationship are for the Authority to decide, and the Authority can apply equity and contract law as necessary.
23 Feb 2012

AZTEC PACKAGING LIMITED V MALEVRIS HC AK CIV-2011-404-5803

Citation

openlaw-701e0184_5329_474f_a717_a682956b68f1.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court lacks jurisdiction because the claim for unauthorised payments by an employee arises from and is related to an employment relationship; statutory exclusivity in s161 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 applies regardless of whether the plaintiff pleads restitution or fiduciary breach, so the matter must be heard by the Employment Relations Authority; summary judgment is therefore dismissed and the proceeding struck out.
14 Oct 2011

LOCK V LAWRENCE HC AK CIV-2011-404-4002

Citation

openlaw-bd2a671a_2abc_4afe_9d7c_4bef6e256024.pdf
Court

High Court

Grant leave under s248(1)(c) and stay the High Court originating application because the dispute is properly an employment relationship problem for the Authority, the company is not insolvent and creditor equality and asset dissipation concerns are not acute, factual issues arising from receivers' re-employment are likely and the Authority is the more suitable forum, and delay or prejudice from a stay is not established.
6 May 2011

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE V C D W HC WN CIV 2011-485-544

Citation

openlaw-f8c0efb3_b90b_487e_b825_c6aa84a61691.pdf
Court

High Court

The dispute concerns alleged employee misconduct within the employment relationship and the adequacy of the employer's disciplinary process; accordingly it is an employment relationship problem falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority and Employment Court under ss161 and 194A of the Employment Relations Act 2000, barring High Court judicial review; the investigator acted as the Commissioner's agent; the High Court must strike out the proceedings for want of jurisdiction.
5 May 2010

V A CRAWSHAW V S PAXTON-PENMAN AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2009-404-001828

Citation

openlaw-3f5ad8d3_a444_45a9_ba26_962bad686239.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held the plaintiff's claims against the second defendant do not require determination of an employment relationship problem and therefore are not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority; the $60,000 arose under the sale and purchase agreement as vendor-purchaser rights, not under the employment agreement, so the jurisdictional objection failed.