| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 89 |
| Determination date | 08 March 2012 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | B Edwards ; M O'Brien |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Hart v Grant t/a Waterstone Insolvency |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged and dismissed by respondent and sought interim reinstatement – Respondent claimed applicant’s present bankruptcy barred applicant from seeking reinstatement – Respondent claimed applicant needed to obtain consent from Official Assignee (“A”) as administrator of bankruptcy – Authority found had to determine whether applicant’s claim for reinstatement related to property within meaning of Insolvency Act 2006 – Found performance of employment contract not transferable like many types of property – Found A not able to step into shoes of applicant if A had wanted to perform work required – Found could not be situation that applicant could enter into new employment with another employer but have no effective way to challenge dismissal by applying for reinstatement – Found not in interests of creditors to have a bankrupt barred from trying to return to paid employment after dismissal by invoking legal relief such as reinstatement – Found applicant’s reinstatement claim did not pass with bankruptcy to A – Found applicant could proceed reinstatement claim |
| Result | Application granted ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA s127;Insolvency Act 2006 s3;Insolvency Act 2006 s101;Insolvency Act 2006 s147 |
| Cases Cited | Beckham v Drake (1849) 2 HLC 579;Matheson v Transmissions & Diesels Ltd [2000] ERNZ 233 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_89.pdf [pdf 31 KB] |