Interim injunction granted in light of employment law, national security, natural justice issues
The New Zealand Employment Court has issued an interim injunction in favour of an employee suspended by the Public Service Commission, given the proceedings’ novel and complex issues in the intersection of employment law, natural justice, and national security.
Yuan Zhao – the plaintiff in Zhao v Public Service Commission [2026] NZEmpC 172 – was an employee of the defendant Public Service Commission.
In 2022, the New Zealand Security Information Service gave the commission concerning information regarding the plaintiff’s alleged conduct. That October, the commission suspended him with pay.
During its disciplinary investigation of the plaintiff, the commission considered classified security information. Thus, in May 2025, the commission formally engaged Mr Keith.
According to the commission, the deputy public service commissioner planned to release a provisional decision on 7 August 2026 based on counsel submissions and other pertinent material received thus far.
On 27 July 2026, before the Employment Relations Authority, the plaintiff applied for an interim injunction. He claimed that the commission’s decision to proceed with its disciplinary process unjustifiably disadvantaged him.
Through his interim injunction application, the plaintiff sought to stop the commission from progressing with its disciplinary process, including any closed or open meetings, until:
Opposing the interim injunction application, the commission wanted to proceed with the provisional decision on 7 August 2026. The commission pointed out that multiple procedural delays had affected and extended the disciplinary process.
In its order, the Employment Court restrained the commission from continuing or advancing its intended disciplinary process, including by proceeding with any relevant closed or open meetings, until a further court order.
The court clarified that its interim order would not prevent the deputy public service commissioner from considering the material and seeking and weighing internal advice and advice from the commission’s legal advisors.
The court expressed its intent to maintain the interim order for a relatively short period. After a complete consideration of the parties’ submissions and other material, the court planned to release a judgment that could continue, amend, or discharge the interim order.
The court reserved the question of costs.
The Employment Court acknowledged the delay in the matter and the commission’s wishes to proceed promptly. The court also accepted the negative impact of the lengthy suspension and disciplinary process on the plaintiff.
However, the court considered the interim order appropriate, given the issues engaged by the proceedings.
Here are some other decisions by the Employment Court of New Zealand.
In litigation initiated by a former employee against their previous employer, the Employment Court issued a 28 July 2026 decision finding no important legal question such that the worker could “leap frog” the investigation straight to an Employment Court hearing.
Regarding an application for access to the court documents in two worker-status proceedings heard by the Employment Court, the court made a 14 July 2026 decision denying access to the hearing transcripts but allowing access to the formal court record.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest employment and labour law news on the main page!
