Search Results

1. [2019] NZEmpC 145 A Labour Inspector v Parihar [pdf, 368 KB]

   A LABOUR INSPECTOR v PARAMJEET SINGH PARIHAR IN PARTNERSHIP WITH KULDIP KAUR PARIHAR TRADING AS SUPER LIQUOR FLAGSTAFF AND SUPER LIQUOR HILLCREST [2019] NZEmpC 145 [16 October 2019] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU [2019] NZEmpC 145 EMPC 106/2018 EMPC 130/2018 IN THE MATTER OF an application for the exercise of powers under Part 9A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 AND IN TH...

2. [2020] NZEmpC 43 A Labour Inspector v Matangi Berry Farm Ltd [pdf, 423 KB]

   ...periods involved. [46] As already noted, Ms Davies agreed that such a method is appropriate, and did not dispute the figures it produced. [47] In Preet, the full Court referred to the principle of globalising.10 In A Labour Inspector v Parihar, Judge Perkins took the view that where consideration of a maximum penalty tied to individual breaches resulted in an enormous total, there would have to be an artificial approach to discounting thereafter to reach a realistic l...

3. [2020] NZEmpC 203 A Labour Inspector v Chhoir [pdf, 331 KB]

   ...considerations, which are now well established.15 There are a number of considerations, which 15 Labour Inspector v Preet PVT Ltd [2016] NZEmpC 143, [2016] ERNZ 514; Labour Inspector v Prabh Ltd [2018] NZEmpC 110, [2018] ERNZ 310; Labour Inspector v Parihar [2019] NZEMpC 145, [2019] ERNZ 406. include mitigating and aggravating factors, all of which need to be appropriately weighed in arriving at a just result. [43] First, the object of the Employment Relations Act 20...

4. [2020] NZEmpC 202 A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v NewZealand Fusion International Ltd [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...5 Section 142A(1)(a)(iii). 6 Discussed in Labour Inspector v Preet PVT Ltd [2016] NZEmpC 143, [2016] ERNZ 514; Labour Inspector v Daleson Investments Ltd [2019] NZEmpC 12, [2019] ERNZ 1; Labour Inspector v Parihar [2019] NZEmpC 145, [2019] ERNZ 406. 7 See Michael Woodhouse Strengthening Enforcement of Employment Standards (Ministry for Workplace Relations and Safety, 2015). [17] I am of the view that the consequential orders should ju

5. [2020] NZEmpC 110 Cowan v Kidd [pdf, 327 KB]

   ...partnership between Mr Kidd and Mr Geoffrey Kidd. The issue therefore arises whether the Court should impose penalties separately against each partner. Penalties against a partnership were explored recently by the Court in Labour Inspector v Parihar. Judge Perkins explained that a partnership is not a legal entity and that the partners therefore are two separate legal entities and liable to separate penalties.14 As a result, each partner is liable to a penalty not exceeding $10...

6. [2023] NZEmpC 225 A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Prisha’s Hospitality (2017) Ltd T/A Royal Cambridge Indian Restaurant [pdf, 302 KB]

   ...At [67]–[70]. 32 At [68], [70] and [84]. holiday pay to three employees.33 Penalties of $300,000 were ordered against the company along with further penalties totalling $150,000 against its director.34 (f) Labour Inspector v Parihar: two individuals in partnership owed $250,470.05 to six employees across a long period.35 The largest breaches occurred prior to 1 April 2016 so were not subject to the pecuniary penalties regime.36 After various reductions for mitig...

7. [2019] NZEmpC 181 A Labour Inspector v New Zealand Fusion International Ltd [pdf, 299 KB]

   ...pay annual holiday pay (in respect of each of the three complainants); and 5 Section 142W. 6 A Labour Inspector v Daleson Investment Ltd [2019] NZEmpC 12 at [23]–[26]. 7 A Labour Inspector v Parihar t/a Super Liquor Flagstaff and Super Liquor Hillcrest [2019] NZEmpC 145 at [39]. See also Mark Perkins, Judge of the Employment Court (Burning Issues in Employment Law Forum, Auckland, 19 September 2019). (c) three failures t...

8. [2022] NZEmpC 234 A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Samra Holdings Ltd T/A Te Puna Liquor Centre [pdf, 685 KB]

   ...Prabh. [227] In Labour Inspector v Daleson Investment Ltd, there was $12,450 owing.67 The Court ordered penalties of $40,000.68 However, it accepted the Labour Inspector’s approach, noting that it was generous.69 [228] In Labour Inspector v Parihar, the Court considered a situation similar to the present, which involved the liquor industry.70 The defendants were two individuals in partnership. The total quantum of breaches was $250,470.05.71 The maximum penalty for each d...

9. [2020] NZEmpC 195 NewZealand Fusion International Ltd (in administration) v A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [pdf, 240 KB]

   ...Quite the contrary is the case where the applicants perpetrated 11 Discussed in Labour Inspector v Preet PVT Ltd [2016] NZEmpC 143, [2016] ERNZ 514; Labour Inspector v Daleson Investments Ltd [2019] NZEmpC 12, [2019] ERNZ 1; Labour Inspector v Parihar [2019] NZEmpC 145, [2019] ERNZ 406. 12 Ladd v Marshall, above n 7. longstanding abuse on migrant workers who suffered substantial personal distress as a result of the actions. [29] The application for rehearing is decline...

10. [2020] NZEmpC 165 Culturesafe NZ Ltd v Turuki Healthcare Services Charitable Trust [pdf, 294 KB]

    ...March 2018. The maximum penalty for each breach is $10,000 but they are related so penalties ought to be looked at globally. 30 Section 135(2). 31 Section 135(4). 32 A Labour Inspector v Parihar [2019] NZEmpC 145 at [14]. 33 As well as the general damages of $3,000. 34 Labour Inspector v Preet PVT Ltd [2016] NZEmpC 143, [2016] ERNZ 514 at [138]-[151]. 35 Nicholson v Ford [2018] NZEmpC 132, [2018] ERNZ 393 at [18]....