Holloway v Attorney-General
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. (April 2015) |
| Holloway v Attorney-General | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Appeal of New Zealand |
| Full case name | Holloway v Attorney-General |
| Decided | 12 December 1994 |
| Citation | [1994] 2 ERNZ 528 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Richardson 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]- ^ 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.
 | This article relating to case law in New Zealand is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |