LexKiwi

25/05/2026

Is the current New Zealand ''Electoral Law Reform'' a controversial political change or it is a positive changes toward transparency.

1. Ending same-day voter enrolment;
2. Restricting prisoner voting;
3. Increasing anonymous donation thresholds; and
4. Banning food distribution near polling booths.

25/05/2026

1. Introduction

The Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026 is one of the key and potential legal document that can bring huge changes to New Zealand Employment Law. The amendment includes changes to employees and contractors classification. This includes personal grievance remedies, collective bargaining protections and gig economy work arrangements. National Party and others whom they are supporting this bill argue that the legislation is a significant move towards modernisation of Employment Law by means of promoting flexibility, minimizing uncertainty, and encouraging economic growth in New Zealand. On the other hand, critics and opposition are raising their concerns that this document may harm workers protections and shift bargaining power toward employers. This article emphasises that although the bill may improve commercial certainty for businesses but collectively the changes bring high risk to workers and undermine protection of working class under umbrella of Employment Law in New Zealand.

2. Background
There are three major controversial points on the reforms that raised concerns about the working class of New Zealand:

The New Gateway Test

The New Gateway Test under the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026 determines whether a worker is legally classified as an ''employee or an independent contractor''.

This distinction creates a false presumption that it may bring commercial certainty. The employees used to be protected by statutory authorities by receiving minimum wages entitlements, annual leave, sick leave, personal grievance rights, and collective bargaining protection whereas contractors generally not entitled. Previously New Zealand courts focused on the ''real nature of the relations'' which is working with an employer rather on focusing on a written contract. The very important and key issue is the nature of the relationship between worker (either employee or contractor) and employer. The new ''Gateway Test'' allowing businesses to work around the structure of the contractual relationship in a way that avoids employment obligations.

Personal Grievance Changes

The reforms also introduced significant restrictions on ''Personal Grievance Remedies''. Under the amendments, employees who contributed to serious misconduct may lose access to compensation or reinstatement remedies. In addition, high-income employees above the statutory earnings threshold may no longer pursue unjustified dismissal claims. Supporters argue these changes reduce unmeritorious claims and improve fairness for employers. Critics, however, argue that the reforms weaken legal protections for vulnerable workers and discourage employees from challenging unfair treatment. Unlike the argument of supporters, this amendment undermines market confidence and reduces employability.

Collective Argument and Union Changes

The legislation also repealed several provisions that previously strengthened collective bargaining protections and union participation in workplaces. Critics argue these amendments weaken unions and reduce workers’ collective negotiating power. Supporters maintain that the reforms provide employers with greater operational flexibility and reduce regulatory burdens.

3. Argument Supporting The Changes
Commercial Certainty: Supporters argue that the reforms create greater legal certainty for businesses, particularly in contractor relationships. Employers and business groups have long argued that uncertainty surrounding worker classification created costly litigation and discouraged economic investment. The gateway test is intended to provide clearer legal standards for determining employment status.
Economic Flexibility: The Government argues that labour market flexibility is necessary in a modern economy, particularly within digital platform industries such as ride-sharing and delivery services. Supporters contend that flexible contractor arrangements allow businesses to innovate and provide workers with greater freedom over working hours and work patterns.
Reducing Firvolous Claims: Supporters also argue that restricting personal grievance remedies prevents abuse of the employment dispute system and ensures that employees who engage in serious misconduct do not receive disproportionate compensation.

4. Opposition/ Critic's Argument About The Reform
Weakening Worker Protections: Critics argue that the reforms fundamentally weaken the protective purpose of employment law. Employment law traditionally exists to address the imbalance of bargaining power between employers and employees. By expanding contractor classifications and limiting grievance remedies, the legislation arguably shifts power toward employers at the expense of vulnerable workers.
Growth of Precarious Work: Critics further argue that the gateway test may accelerate the growth of precarious gig economy work. Workers classified as contractors may lose access to minimum employment rights, including paid leave, minimum wage protections, and dismissal protections. This concern is particularly significant in platform-based industries such as Uber and delivery services.
Weakening Collective Bargaining: Trade unions argue that reducing collective agreement protections weakens workers’ ability to negotiate fair wages and conditions collectively. Critics contend that individual bargaining often favours employers because of unequal economic power between parties.

5. Legal and Social Implications
The reforms raise broader constitutional and policy questions about the purpose of employment law in New Zealand. Historically, employment law developed as a protective framework recognising the unequal bargaining relationship between employers and workers. The 2026 reforms appear to reflect a shift toward market-oriented labour regulation focused on flexibility and economic efficiency. The long-term implications may include increased labour insecurity, growth in contractor-based work, and reduced union influence.

6. Opinion
In my view, the reforms provide some legitimate benefits in terms of commercial certainty and labour market flexibility. However, several amendments appear to prioritise economic efficiency over worker protection. The gateway test is particularly concerning because it may enable employers to avoid statutory obligations through contractual structuring. While economic flexibility is important, employment law should continue to protect vulnerable workers from exploitation and unequal bargaining power.

7. Conclusion
The Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026 represents a major shift in New Zealand employment law. Although supporters argue the reforms modernise labour relations and improve business certainty, critics contend that the legislation weakens worker protections and undermines the protective purpose of employment law. Ultimately, whether the reforms are viewed as necessary modernisation or anti-worker legislation depends on how one balances economic flexibility against social protection. Nevertheless, the reforms are likely to have long-term consequences for employment relationships and labour rights in New Zealand.

Introduction The Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026 is one of the key and potential legal document that can bring huge changes to New Zealand Employment Law. The amendment includes changes to employees and contractors classification.

22/05/2026

Undue influence!

Allcard v Skinner, (1887) 36 Ch D 145

Issue
Whether gifts made under spiritual influence could be reversed.

Rule
Presumed undue influence arises where:
1. A relationship of trust exists; and
2. The transaction is not readily explained.

Facts
A woman transferred significant assets after joining a religious order.

Parties’ Arguments
Claimant: Influence from religious authority compromised consent.
Defendant: Voluntary religious gift.

Judgment
Undue influence established but relief denied due to delay.

Principle
Equity protects vulnerable parties in relationships of trust and confidence.

14/05/2026

The Double Standard Between the Supreme Court Decision and the Employment Relations Act 2000

The recent Supreme Court decision in Rasier Operations BV v E Tū Inc created one of the most important employment law discussions in New Zealand’s modern gig economy.

The Court recognised that although Uber drivers were called “independent contractors” in their contracts, the reality of the relationship looked much closer to employment. The decision reinforced an important principle under the Employment Relations Act 2000:

Courts must look at the real nature of the relationship, not just the wording of the contract.

At first glance, this appears to be a strong victory for worker protection. However, the situation also exposes what many lawyers and commentators describe as a growing “double standard” between legal principle and practical reality.

⸻

The Purpose of the Employment Relations Act 2000

The Employment Relations Act 2000 was designed to protect vulnerable workers and promote fairness in employment relationships.

The Act recognises that many workers do not have equal bargaining power compared to large companies. Because of this imbalance, the law aims to prevent businesses from avoiding legal responsibilities simply by drafting contracts in their favour.

Section 6 of the Act is particularly important because it states that courts must consider:
• all relevant matters,
• the true nature of the relationship,
• and practical reality rather than labels alone.

This approach reflects substance over form:

what happens in reality matters more than what the paperwork says.

⸻

The Supreme Court’s Strong Position

In the Uber case, the Supreme Court carefully examined how the platform operated in practice.

The Court found that Uber:
• controlled access to customers,
• controlled pricing,
• monitored driver performance,
• used rating systems,
• and had the power to remove drivers from the platform.

Although drivers could choose when to log into the app, the Court considered that this flexibility alone was not enough to create genuine independence.

The judges recognised that many drivers were economically dependent on Uber and had little real ability to negotiate the terms of their agreements.

As a result, the Court concluded that the drivers were employees while using the Uber platform.

The decision appeared to send a powerful message:

Businesses cannot avoid employment obligations simply by calling workers “contractors.”

⸻

Where the Double Standard Begins

The difficulty arises after the decision.

Although the Court strongly emphasised the “real nature of the relationship,” later legislative and contractual developments appear to move in the opposite direction.

Following the case:
• Uber updated its contractor agreements,
• and the Government introduced new contractor-focused rules designed to create greater certainty for platform businesses.

This creates tension between:
1. the Court’s worker-protection approach, and
2. the practical legal framework now developing around gig economy businesses.

⸻

The Practical Reality

In reality, many of the features criticised by the Supreme Court still exist:
• Uber continues to control the digital platform,
• drivers still rely on ratings,
• fares are still largely controlled by the company,
• and access to customers remains platform-dependent.

However, updated contractual wording now places greater emphasis on:
• flexibility,
• freedom to work elsewhere,
• and independent contractor language.

This creates a legal contradiction.

On one hand, the Supreme Court says:

Reality matters more than labels.

On the other hand, modern business models increasingly rely on carefully drafted contracts and legislative exceptions that may effectively preserve contractor status despite continuing control.

⸻

Why This Matters Beyond Uber

The issue is much larger than one company.

The gig economy is rapidly expanding across:
• ride-sharing,
• food delivery,
• courier services,
• freelance digital platforms,
• and app-based labour systems.

If companies can maintain significant operational control while avoiding employment obligations through technical contractual structures, critics argue this weakens the protective purpose of the Employment Relations Act 2000.

This raises an important legal and policy question:

Is the law genuinely protecting vulnerable workers, or is it slowly adapting to accommodate modern corporate models?

⸻

A Broader Legal Concern

Some lawyers argue that the current approach creates uncertainty and inconsistency.

Workers may perform duties similar to employees while lacking:
• holiday pay,
• sick leave,
• minimum wage protection,
• and job security.

At the same time, businesses argue that flexible contractor models are necessary for innovation and economic efficiency.

The law therefore faces a difficult balancing exercise between:
• worker protection,
• commercial flexibility,
• and modern technology-driven business structures.

⸻

Conclusion

The Uber decision reaffirmed one of the most important principles in New Zealand employment law:

Courts should look at the real substance of a working relationship.

However, the developments following the decision reveal an emerging tension between legal principle and commercial reality.

While the Supreme Court focused on protecting workers from artificial contractual labels, later contractual and legislative changes may allow businesses to preserve contractor structures in practice.

This creates what many see as a double standard:
• the law says reality matters most,
• yet the system may still permit carefully designed contractor models that continue to resemble employment relationships.

The future challenge for New Zealand employment law will be determining whether the Employment Relations Act 2000 can continue to protect vulnerable workers in an increasingly digital and platform-based economy.

13/05/2026

Pakistan International Airline Corporation v Times Travel (UK) Ltd [2021] UKSC 40

Facts
Pakistan International Airlines (“PIA”) worked with Times Travel (UK) Ltd, a small travel agency that sold airline tickets mainly for flights between the UK and Pakistan.

Times Travel depended heavily on PIA because PIA was the only airline offering direct flights on that route. A dispute arose over unpaid commission that travel agents claimed PIA owed them.

PIA then terminated the old agency agreement lawfully, reduced Times Travel’s ticket allocation, offered a new agreement, but only if Times Travel gave up its claims for unpaid commission.

Times Travel accepted the agreement because it feared going out of business. Later, it argued that it had signed the agreement under economic duress and wanted the contract set aside.

Legal Issue
Can a party commit economic duress when it uses lawful commercial pressure to force another party into a contract?

More specifically:
Was PIA’s conduct “illegitimate pressure”?
Does lawful pressure become duress if the weaker party has no realistic choice?

Decision:
The UK Supreme Court held that there was no economic duress.

The Court decided:
PIA’s actions were lawful, PIA genuinely believed it was not liable for the unpaid commission, commercial pressure alone is not enough for duress, lawful act duress will only exist in rare cases involving bad faith or morally unacceptable conduct.

Key Principle
A lawful threat or lawful commercial pressure will usually not amount to economic duress unless:

1. The pressure is illegitimate, and the party applying pressure acts in bad faith.

2. The case confirmed that English contract law does not generally protect parties simply because bargaining power is unequal.

Why the Case is Important

This case is now one of the leading authorities on:
1. economic duress,
2. lawful act duress,
3. commercial bargaining pressure.

It shows that courts are cautious about interfering in tough commercial negotiations, even where one party is much stronger than the other.

11/05/2026

Significant Copyright Case

Brown v. Warner Chappell Music Inc & Others
(United States Federal Copyright Proceedings concerning the song Levitating)

Parties
• Plaintiffs: L. Russell Brown and Sandy Linzer (songwriters)
• Defendants: Dua Lipa and associated music companies

Facts

The plaintiffs alleged that the song Levitating copied elements from their earlier songs:
• Wiggle and Giggle All Night (1979)
• Don Diablo (1980)

They argued that the melody, rhythm, and overall musical composition were substantially similar and therefore amounted to copyright infringement.

Legal Issue

Whether the similarities between Levitating and the earlier songs were sufficiently original and protected by copyright law to establish infringement.

Decision

The court dismissed the claim and ruled in favour of Dua Lipa.

Court’s Reasoning

The judge held that:
• copyright law does not protect generic musical building blocks;
• disco-style musical patterns and simple melodic sequences are common within music history;
• the allegedly copied features lacked sufficient originality for copyright protection.

The court noted that allowing ownership over common musical styles would improperly restrict creativity within the music industry.

Legal Principle

Copyright protects:
• original expression,

but does not protect:
• general musical styles,
• genres,
• common rhythms,
• basic chord progressions,
• or short generic melodic patterns.

Significance

The case reinforces the modern judicial approach in music copyright disputes:
• inspiration is lawful,
• but direct copying of protected original expression is not.

The decision is considered significant for artists, producers, and the entertainment industry because it limits overly broad copyright claims in popular music.

07/05/2026

Duress in Contract Law: McIntyre v Nemesis DBK Ltd

Leading judges: Justice O'Regan, Justice Robertson, and Justice Arnold

In McIntyre v Nemesis DBR Ltd, the court looked at whether a person was pressured into an agreement through unfair pressure and coercion.

The case reminds us that a contract is not truly fair if someone is forced into it because they feel they have no real choice. In law, this is called duress. It happens when pressure goes beyond normal business negotiation and becomes improper or threatening.

The court explained that strong pressure alone is not always illegal. Businesses negotiate hard all the time. But if one side uses power in a way that leaves the other person with no practical option except to agree, the contract may be challenged.

The key lesson from the case is:
A contract should come from free consent, not from fear, intimidation, or unfair pressure.

This case is important in New Zealand contract law because it shows the difference between legitimate negotiation and unlawful coercion.

https://lexkiwi-4tpyowja.manus.space/

30/04/2026

Promissory Estoppel (High Trees)

Promissory estoppel is a legal principle that stops a person from going back on a promise, even if there was no formal contract or consideration. If someone makes a clear promise, and the other person relies on that promise, it may be unfair (inequitable) to allow the person to change their mind later. In such cases, the law may prevent them from going back on their word.

Requirements

1. There must be an existing legal relationship (like a contract).
2. One party makes a clear promise not to enforce their strict legal rights.
3. The other party relies on that promise.
4. It would be unfair to allow the first party to go back on the promise.

Essentials

1. It is a defence, not a claim (a shield, not a sword).
2. It usually suspends rights, not permanently removes them.
3. Each case depends on fairness and circumstances.

High Trees Case, as an example!

A landlord reduced rent during difficult times. The tenant relied on this and paid less. Later, the landlord could not claim the reduced rent for the past period, because it would be unfair after the tenant relied on the promise.

Summary

If someone makes a promise and another person relies on it, the law may stop the promisor from going back on it if it would be unfair.