| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 224 |
| Hearing date | 29 Jun 2012 |
| Determination date | 03 July 2012 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | M O'Brien, N Taefi ; P Swarbrick |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Edwards v Two Degrees Mobile Ltd & Anor |
| Other Parties | Hertz |
| Summary | INJUNCTION – Applicant sought interim injunction restraining respondent from terminating applicant’s employment – Authority found weak arguable case that respondent’s decision to disestablish applicant’s position motivated predominantly by adverse view of applicant personally – Found balance of convenience in favour of interim injunction – Found adequate alternative remedies available to applicant – Found weakness of applicant’s case and respondent’s offer to retain applicant on gardening leave meant overall justice of case against interim injunction – Application for interim injunction declined – Strategist |
| Abstract | Applicant employed by respondent as strategist. Applicant sought interim injunction restraining respondent from terminating applicant’s employment. Respondent decided applicant’s position surplus to respondent’s needs and gave applicant notice of dismissal. Applicant claimed unjustifiably disadvantaged by respondent’s decision to disestablish applicant’s position. Applicant claimed respondent’s decision to disestablish applicant’s position motivated predominantly by adverse view of applicant personally. Applicant claimed termination of applicant’s employment would affect value of applicant’s shareholding interests in respondent.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;INJUNCTION: Authority ordered non-publication of sections of applicant’s evidence. Weak arguable case that respondent’s decision to disestablish applicant’s position motivated predominantly by adverse view of applicant personally. No suggestion applicant involved in wrongdoing or impropriety but respondent not put to unreasonable expense in continuing applicant’s employment on interim basis. Balance of convenience in favour of interim injunction. No link established between applicant’s employment and applicant’s shareholding interests in respondent so remedies available to protect applicant’s shareholding interests not available in Authority. Adequate alternative remedies available to applicant in respect of loss arising from employment relationship. Strongly arguable that respondent genuinely considered applicant’s position surplus to respondent’s needs and respondent’s offer to retain applicant on gardening leave until dispute resolved addressed any significant imbalance of convenience between parties. Overall justice of case against interim injunction. Application for interim injunction declined. |
| Result | Application dismissed; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Injunction |
| Statutes | ERA;ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | G N Hale & Sons Ltd v Wellington etc Caretakers etc IUOW (1990) ERNZ Sel Cas 843; [1991] 1 NZLR 151;Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825 |
| Number of Pages | 13 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_224.pdf [pdf 268 KB] |