Employment Court representation - challenges, judicial review, and high stakes employment disputes
The Employment Court is a specialist court that deals with serious employment disputes. Most commonly, it hears challenges to Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determinations.
It can also hear other proceedings directly, including strike and lockout disputes, judicial review in limited situations, and urgent applications such as interim injunctions.
Unlike the ERA, the Employment Court process is more formal and procedure driven. The quality of pleadings, evidence, and case management can decide the outcome.
If you are heading toward the Employment Court, strategy and execution matter: what you file, how you frame issues, how you prove facts, and how you control risk and cost.
Time critical: If you are challenging an ERA determination, there is usually a strict 28 day time limit from the date of the written determination.
Do not sit on it. If you miss the window, your options narrow fast.
How cases get to the Employment Court
Employment Court proceedings often arise in one of these ways:
-
Challenge to an ERA determination: the Court can rehear the whole case (a de novo challenge) or focus on specific alleged errors of fact or law (often called a non de novo challenge).
-
Judicial review style proceedings: in limited categories where review is available, often where urgent intervention is needed.
-
Direct Court jurisdiction matters: including strike and lockout disputes and other specific proceedings provided for by employment legislation.
De novo vs non de novo challenges (what this means in practice)
People often misunderstand what a "challenge" is. A challenge is not always a normal appeal.
-
De novo challenge: the Court can hear the entire matter again. This is effectively a rehearing, with evidence and witnesses.
It is high effort, higher cost, and can be high reward if the ERA got the facts wrong or if the overall result is unacceptable.
-
Non de novo challenge: the challenge is limited to specific errors. This requires tight drafting and a disciplined approach.
You must identify exactly what is challenged and why, and what relief is sought.
Common mistake: filing vague challenge grounds or trying to reargue everything without choosing the correct path. This increases cost and reduces credibility.
What the Employment Court process usually looks like
Each case differs, but a typical pathway includes:
- Statement of claim: the pleading that sets out what you say happened, the legal basis, and what orders you seek.
- Statement of defence: the response, including admissions, denials, and the respondent's version.
- Directions and case management: the Court sets timetables for evidence, documents, and hearing preparation.
- Evidence preparation: witness evidence is commonly prepared in written form and then tested at hearing.
- Interlocutory applications (if needed): for example strike out, security for costs, discovery issues, interim injunctions.
- Hearing: witnesses are examined and cross examined, submissions are made, and the Judge issues a decision.
The Court expects parties to comply with timetables and procedural requirements. Sloppy pleadings and late evidence create avoidable risk.
In Employment Court litigation, "process problems" are not a side issue - they can decide the case.
Why Employment Court cases are different from the ERA
-
Higher formality: pleadings and evidence must be structured and consistent.
-
Greater cost exposure: Employment Court litigation usually costs more than the ERA due to procedure and hearing preparation.
-
More tactical pressure: deadlines, interlocutory steps, and evidence management can create leverage.
-
Reputational consequences: Employment Court decisions can be published and indexed, affecting both employees and employers.
What we do in Employment Court matters
Strong Court representation is not just arguing at hearing. It is building a defensible case from the ground up:
- Early risk assessment: strengths, weaknesses, evidence gaps, and commercial settlement ranges.
- Pleadings that win: clear facts, correct causes of action, disciplined challenge grounds, and coherent remedies.
- Evidence engineering: timelines, document bundles, and witness preparation that hold up under cross examination.
- Interlocutory strategy: protecting your position early and preventing the other side from gaining unfair leverage.
- Settlement leverage: realistic negotiation based on Court risk, cost exposure, and likely outcomes.
Employees: when Employment Court action makes sense
Employment Court involvement can arise for employees where:
- The ERA determination is wrong on key facts or outcome, and a challenge is needed.
- The remedy needs stronger enforcement or the dispute escalates beyond the ERA process.
- The employer is running a high pressure defence and the employee needs strong litigation management.
Employers: defending Employment Court litigation and challenges
Employers most often face Employment Court risk when:
- An employee challenges an ERA determination (de novo or non de novo).
- A dispute needs urgent Court intervention, including injunction style relief in appropriate cases.
- The stakes are high: reinstatement risk, large backpay exposure, penalties, or reputational harm.
