20 Nov 2020
Extension of time to apply for leave was granted but leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court and provided no basis to conclude the Employment Court's costs decision was legally wrong.
17 Jun 2020
Leave to appeal denied because the proposed appeal did not raise a question of law of general or public importance; the Employment Court correctly applied the s103A reasonableness test and its factual assessment that the employer's investigation and conclusions were within the range of responses open to a fair and reasonable employer was not a matter for this Court to revisit on leave.
22 May 2015
Leave to appeal dismissed because the proposed grounds raised no question of law of requisite general or public importance; the Employment Court applied the s103A(2) test and considered the s103A(3) factors in context and its conclusions were essentially factual and not shown to be insupportable, so the case was unsuitable for determination by this Court.
28 Jun 2011
The Court refused leave because the contested matters were primarily factual findings open to the Employment Court (including attribution of union acts and absence of a safety risk) and did not raise a question of law of sufficient general or public importance under s 214(3); accordingly leave to appeal was not warranted.
19 Oct 2007
Leave to appeal was granted because the proposed grounds met the statutory criteria and were framed narrowly to permit the Supreme Court to determine whether the delay qualified as 'exceptional circumstances' under s 114 and whether the Employment Court had jurisdiction to review the laying and prosecution of misconduct charges and the Tribunal's conduct and report.
6 Jun 2006
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal did not raise matters of general or public importance; the Court of Appeal correctly held the Employment Court had misdirected itself on serious misconduct and disparity and was entitled to determine the question on the non de novo record, concluding the dismissals were justifiable.
9 Sept 2004
The Chief Judge erred as a matter of law in refusing to reduce remedies for the employee's substantial contributory misconduct; reinstatement refusal was upheld because the employee failed to produce or seek leave to adduce updated medical evidence and reinstatement was not practicable; the Court of Appeal will determine or receive further argument on the extent of reduction, acknowledging a loss‑of‑chance approach may be appropriate.
21 Jul 2004
The Court held that although the Employment Court was wrong to treat pre-August 2000 incidents as automatically irrelevant, the dismissal was nonetheless unjustifiable on the independent ground that Telecom failed to follow appropriate disciplinary procedure (notably absence of a written warning), and accordingly dismissed Telecom's appeal; the Court allowed the cross-appeal on quantum and substituted judgment for the respondent in the sum of NZD 55,000 (NZD 50,000 economic loss after 50% contribution discount and deduction for paid notice, plus NZD 5,000 non-economic loss) with interest and…