Plain language law

New Zealand law explained for everyone

Employment Relations Act 2000

Institutions - Employment Court

193: Proceedings not to be questioned

You could also call this:

“Court decisions are final, unless there's a very good reason to question them”

If you are involved in a case with the Employment Court, you cannot usually question what the court decides. You can only question the court’s decision if it does not have the power to make that decision, or as provided in sections 213, 214, 217, and 218.

The court does not have the power to make a decision if it is not allowed to look into the matter, if the decision is not something the court can make, or if the court acts in bad faith.

You cannot take the court’s decision to another court to be reviewed, unless it is one of the exceptions mentioned, such as lack of jurisdiction or as provided in the mentioned sections, sections, sections, and sections.

This text is automatically generated. It might be out of date or be missing some parts. Find out more about how we do this.

This page was last updated on

View the original legislation for this page at https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM60989.

Topics:
Work and jobs > Worker rights Crime and justice > Courts and legal help

Part 10 Institutions
Employment Court

193Proceedings not to be questioned

  1. Except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or as provided in sections 213, 214, 217, and 218, no decision, order, or proceedings of the court are removable to any court by certiorari or otherwise, or are liable to be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed, or called in question in any court.

  2. For the purposes of subsection (1), the court suffers from lack of jurisdiction only where,—

  3. in the narrow and original sense of the term jurisdiction, it has no entitlement to enter upon the inquiry in question; or
    1. the decision or order is outside the classes of decisions or orders which the court is authorised to make; or
      1. the court acts in bad faith.

        Compare
        • 1991 No 22 s 104(5), (6)