| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 357 |
| Determination date | 11 October 2012 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | no appearance ; D Asher |
| Parties | Shortland v The Board of Trustees of Te Kura Kaupapa Maori O Ngaringaomatariki Primary School |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Respondent sought to strike out applicant’s claim for want of prosecution – Authority found applicant’s “letter of grievance” did not properly raise personal grievance and unclear what steps applicant would take – Found appropriate to strike out proceeding for want of prosecution – Found delay prejudicial to respondent as was small employer and prima facie no case for respondent to answer - Application for strike out of application granted - Teacher |
| Abstract | Applicant employed as teacher. Respondent sought to strike out applicant’s claim. Applicant ill during employment and did not return to work after medical certificate stating applicant unfit expired. Applicant sent applicant letter stating was “letter of grievance.” Respondent denied applicant dismissed and claimed applicant simply failed to return to work. Applicant legally aided and resolution of matter significantly delayed by further legal aid application. Matter adjourned and Authority previously indicated if matter not able to be heard within one month Authority would hear application from respondent to strike out proceedings. Applicant’s previous representative advised Authority application for legal aid withdrawn and no longer had instructions on day determination prepared by Authority but before determination issued. Applicant advised Authority same day that opposed strike out application but did not indicate what steps applicant would take. Respondent claimed abuse of process that applicant raised alleged grievance, failed to provide factual basis for claim and then took no steps to proceed with matter.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Applicant’s “letter of grievance” did not properly raise personal grievance as nothing in letter to indicate factual matrix or to explain nature of alleged dismissal. Authority noted advice from applicant’s previous representative and applicant relating to strike out application not received within Authority’s timeline and not clear what steps applicant would take. Appropriate to strike out proceeding for want of prosecution. Delay prejudicial to respondent as was small employer and prima facie no case for respondent to answer. Application for strike out of application granted. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | Legal Services Act 2000 s40 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_357.pdf [pdf 157 KB] |