Jump to content

Holloway v Attorney-General

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Holloway v Attorney-General
CourtCourt of Appeal of New Zealand
Full case name Holloway v Attorney-General
Decided12 December 1994
Citation[1994] 2 ERNZ 528
Court membership
Judges sittingRichardson J, Hardie Boys J, McKay J
Keywords
unilateral contract

Holloway v Attorney-General [1994] 2 ERNZ 528 is a case frequently cited in New Zealand regarding unilateral contracts.[1]

Background

[edit]

Until the late 1980s, in an effort to reduce a shortage of school teachers in New Zealand, the Ministry of Education stated that people who completed a teachers course at university, upon graduation, would be employed for 2 years as a teacher by the ministry.

However, with declining numbers of students, and a substantial budget deficit, the government ceased this guarantee of employment, and when Ms Hollaway graduated as a teacher she was not offered the promised employment.

Not happy with this, Holloway sued the Ministry of Education in the Employment Court.

Held

[edit]

The Court of Appeal ruled that the Ministry of Education's statements of "will be appointed [as a teacher]" was a unilateral contract, thus there was a legally binding obligation to employ Ms Holloway.

Footnote: Although Holloway won the battle of whether there was a legally binding employment contract, she at the same time lost the war, as the Court of Appeal ruled that the Employment Court had no jurisdiction to hear such a case in the first place, leaving Holloway having to refile her claim via the District Court instead.

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Chetwin, Maree; Graw, Stephen; Tiong, Raymond (2006). An introduction to the Law of Contract in New Zealand (4th ed.). Thomson Brookers. pp. 276–277, 283. ISBN 0-86472-555-8.