New Zealand Employment Court case summaries covering challenges to Employment Relations Authority decisions, unjustified dismissal, unjustified disadvantage, remedies, procedure, and other significant employment law issues.
These Employment Court case summaries cover significant New Zealand employment law decisions, including challenges to Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determinations. They explain the facts, the Court's reasoning, the result, and what the decision means in practice for employees and employers.
The Employment Court can hear challenges to ERA determinations, including cases heard again on a de novo basis. Some Court decisions uphold the Authority's result, while others overturn or materially change findings about dismissal, disadvantage, remedies, reinstatement, lost wages, compensation, penalties, or other employment law issues.
These summaries are intended to make the later history of important ERA cases clear. Where an Employment Court decision changes an ERA result, the Court outcome is identified so that an earlier Authority determination is not read without its subsequent history.
![Santamaria v Television New Zealand Ltd [2026] NZEmpC 210 - lawyer-led workplace review was not legally privileged](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)
In an interlocutory Employment Court judgment, TVNZ failed to establish legal advice privilege over the Robins Report, a lawyer-led review of recruitment and workplace processes. The Court also rejected broad non-publication orders based only on general privacy and reputational concerns. The substantive dispute remains unresolved.
Former Gloriavale members successfully judicially reviewed Labour Inspectorate decisions to take no further action on earlier inquiries. The Employment Court found errors concerning the Inspectorate's jurisdictional threshold, child workers, irrelevant considerations and failures to make adequate further inquiries. Remedies were left for a reconvened hearing.
The Employment Court left the ERA's unchallenged finding of unjustified redundancy dismissal in place but increased compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings from $8,000 to $15,000. The judgment is useful guidance on evidence of emotional harm and the updated compensation bands.
The Employment Court found two unjustified disadvantages in a long-running school employment dispute: former employers listed on LMN's CV were contacted without authority while her grievances were being investigated, and medical certificates were not properly recognised when dealing with her leave. Most of LMN's wider claims failed.
South Pole maintained that Xinhua Hao had agreed to resign, pressured him to leave, stopped providing meaningful work and refused to engage with him about work matters. The Employment Court upheld the ERA's constructive-dismissal finding.
Employment Services pursued serious-misconduct allegations without adequately identifying them or providing requested information. Its unagreed visit to Frank Resink's home to recover a company vehicle became the last straw in continuing breaches of good faith.
Mr Faitala and Mrs Vea were made redundant by Pacific Island Business Development Trust during a flawed restructure. Their Employment Court challenge focused on pre-dismissal disadvantage during the process and the proper level of lost-remuneration and compensation remedies.
A school Board challenged an ERA order temporarily reinstating LGY while the employee's substantive dismissal grievance remained unresolved. The employer relied on alleged serious misconduct, loss of trust and workplace relationship concerns to resist reinstatement.
