9 Nov 2020
There was a genuine and substantial dispute as to the debt and the matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority under s161 ERA; accordingly the statutory demand under Companies Act s290 was set aside and costs were awarded to the applicant with a 25% uplift on a 2B scale plus disbursements.
22 Sept 2020
The Court held the Human Rights Review Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the pregnancy discrimination claim; s 56(1)–(4) Parental Leave Act defines and prescribes procedures for parental leave complaints but does not exclude parallel or alternative causes of action under the Human Rights Act, and s56(4) should be read as procedural rather than ousting Tribunal jurisdiction.
29 Aug 2019
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…
18 Jun 2015
The settlement agreement was a stand-alone accord intended to replace the employment agreement and operate post-termination; it was not an employment agreement nor a variation to it such that the Authority had exclusive jurisdiction under s 161. Consequently the Employment Court did not have derivative jurisdiction under s 187 to hear and award damages for breach of that settlement agreement. Claims founded on breach of a settlement agreement of this kind must be pursued in the ordinary courts (District or High Court) rather than the Authority or Employment Court.
4 Apr 2014
Claims against the third defendant arose from and were related to the employment relationship and therefore fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority under s161 ERA 2000; by contrast, the claims against the first defendant as director (and the second defendant company) concerned duties as director and some post‑employment conduct and therefore remained properly within the High Court's jurisdiction.
5 May 2010
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.