On 21 October 2022, Mr Locke's contract with Rishworth ended with immediate effect following an unsuccessful medical examination. Mr Locke raised a personal grievance and sought a declaration that he was either an employee of Rishworth with KAL as a controlling third party under the Employment Relations Act 2000, or that both companies jointly employed him. Both Rishworth and KAL denied he held employee status.
The Court confirmed it held both personal and subject-matter jurisdiction over the employment status question, drawing on the Supreme Court's approach in Brown v New Zealand Basing Ltd [2017] NZSC 139. Judge Beck then applied the forum non conveniens test and found that KAL discharged its burden of showing South Korea to be the more appropriate forum.
Several factors drove that conclusion. Mr Locke held no New Zealand citizenship or residency and provided no services in New Zealand. KAL's New Zealand office, which employed six people mostly in sales and customer service, played no role in his recruitment, engagement, or work. All dealings with KAL and all performance of his work took place outside New Zealand. Rishworth paid him in USD to an overseas bank account. The parties also disputed Mr Locke's home base: KAL argued it was Seoul, South Korea, while Mr Locke maintained it was Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, though he did not suggest Malaysia as the appropriate forum.
The New Zealand governing law clause in the Rishworth-Locke contract did not...
exporters knowingly avoided U. S. duties on Asian and European flat-rolled steel products, agreeing to pay $19 million to resolve the dispute, according to a press release issued Wednesday by the U...