Case Law, Case Summaries
and Commentary

Here Are Examples of Cases Through New Zealand and International Courts That Backup Our Cause

Click on any of the cases to bring up the pdf for the case

Shepherd v The State of South Australia (in right of the Department of Child Protection) 2024

This is a ground breaking case for workers injured by the vax. Even though it is Australia the rules of law apply even more so here

Air NZ Pilot Wins Case - Unjustified Disadvantage

Another case that shows how wrong the bosses were

School counsellors win $1.8m in damages for workplace stress over student suicides, deaths

Former Melville High School guidance counsellors Ron and Kath Cronin-Lampe have won $1.79 million in damages against the school board of trustees for workplace harm and stress after their workload from excessive student suicides, fatal car crashes, terminal illnesses and murder became untenable.

Respondents in vaccination cases appear to have selective reading issues when it comes to employees raising a grievance in the work place. Written emails raising concerns do not appear to count as personal grievances, really??

Here’s a couple of cases where the 90 days issue was won:

90 Day Example 2023 NZERA 138

Mr Berryman validly raised a personal grievance in terms of s 103(1)(c) of the Act within the 90 day period in compliance with s 114 of the Act.

The findings in this case have been deliberately withheld for almost 12 months. The Worker won and they didnt want people to know!

NEW!!, J Collier V Dayma Industries

NEW!!! Oranga Tamariki Loses - Breaches of good faith, causing hurt and humiliation

CAROLINE VAN DRAGT v Oranga Tamariki

Case Highlight

Worksafe v NEMA – National Emergency Management Agency

White Island Disaster – Most of us can remember this event. Horrible for most of those involved including  some rescuers who were blocked and prevented from helping in the rescue…reminiscent of HB flooding….but thats another story….

This case stemmed from the White Island disaster. Worksafe was attempting to prosecute NEMA (National Emergency Management Agency) for what Worksafe believed was a breach of Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. It was proven by the judge not to be – a volcanic eruption is a random “act of god” that NEMA had no hand in creating. NEMA are not in the business of creating volcanic eruptions therefore they could not be held responsible for not predicting it.

We can use this case to demonstrate the C19 is not a workplace hazard in the same way. If businesses or employers are a laboratory making viruses such as c19 and a worker was to catch it while at work, that then makes it a workplace hazard. If businesses such as supermarkets or steel mills, who are in the business manufacturing or selling goods not including C19 virus products for sale, they are not creating a possibly dangerous C19-related workplace hazard.

It is a public health issue not a workplace one. C19 is not created in workplaces other than a lab carrying out that business activity.

Other examples of workplace hazards a forklifts, dangerous machinery, toxic chemicals, bullying and coercion exerted on the employee or causing injury to the worker

WHITTOME Erika v TAUPO TENNIS CLUB and Ors CIV-2022-069-000021 [2023] NZDC 928

Seymour v Oranga Tamariki . Gisborne Herald

Judge Inglis is bang on in this decision against NZ Customs.The values statements of your employer and its code of conduct are very relevant in the workplace, especially when the boss tries to quickly fire you for not taking a fraud medicated treatment.

How is it that a nurse loses her job and the following court case for not wearing a mask even though she had an exemption - 2023-NZERA-149

Guess what? Not taking a medical treatment is ok. Sharing your views on this at work is also ok. The "merino story" clothing company found this out the hard way

George Garvey v City of New York DECISION ORDER ON 38

Candian Judgement #1 - Children Not To Be Vaccinated - Dad says yes Mum says no

Candian Judgement #2 - Children Not To Be Vaccinated - Dad says yes, Mum says No - The mother’s evidence focused entirely on the medical and scientific issues. [18] In contrast, the father focussed extensively on labelling and discrediting the mother as a person, in a dismissive attempt to argue that her views aren’t worthy of consideration. no

2023-NZERA-202_S Flavin v Te_Whatu_Ora

Hurt and Humiliation and job loss

Electrical Union 2001 Inc v Mighty River Power Ltd, [2013] NZEmpC 197 (2013)

Employers demand for random drug and alcohol testing outside scope of collective agreement

Fry v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, [2023] NZERA 44 (2023)

Employer Did Not Ensure Safety of Workplace

P Laursen v Coldrite Refrigeration & Air Conditioning

Personal Grievance and Unjustified Dismissal

Skip to content