| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 382 |
| Hearing date | 25 Oct 2012 |
| Determination date | 25 October 2012 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | C Ranson ; S Wilson |
| Parties | Vicelich v PropertyIQ New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Removal of matter to Employment Court (“EC”) on own motion – Respondent had filed claim in High Court (“HC”) that applicant unlawfully acquired respondent’s confidential information – Authority found whether Authority had exclusive jurisdiction to hear matters also subject of HC claim important question of law likely to arise – Found important for parties and public to have certainty of jurisdiction in matters involving inter-related employment and civil issues – Found in all circumstances EC should determine matter - Matter removed to EC |
| Abstract | Authority considered removal of matter to Employment Court (“EC”) on own motion. Applicant claimed respondent had breached parties’ employment agreement (“EA”) and sought recovery of monies and payment of commission. Respondent denied amounts outstanding and counterclaimed applicant had breached EA’s restraint of trade clause. Respondent had filed claim in High Court (“HC”) that applicant unlawfully acquired respondent’s confidential information. HC observed in interim judgment parties’ statutory obligations did not survive termination of employment relationship. Applicant supported removal and claimed matter of concurrent jurisdiction, involved complex issues and HC claim inextricably linked to matter. Respondent opposed removal and claimed issues straightforward matters within Authority’s jurisdiction and jurisdictional issue not relevant to matter.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Effect of HC judgment was that where parallel claims arising out of same employment matter, HC should exercise jurisdiction over all proceedings between parties. Whether Authority had exclusive jurisdiction to hear matters also subject of HC claim important question of law likely to arise. Important for parties and public to have certainty of jurisdiction in matters involving inter-related employment and civil issues. In all circumstances EC should determine matter. Matter removed to EC. |
| Result | Application granted ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s101(ab);ERA s131;ERA s133;ERA s143(b);ERA s143(c);ERA s143(fa);ERA s161;ERA s161(1)(a);ERA s161(1)(b);ERA s161(1)(m);ERA s177;ERA s178;ERA s178(2);ERA s178(2)(a);ERA s178(2)(b);ERA s178(2)(d) |
| Cases Cited | Abernethy v Dynea New Zealand Ltd [2007] ERNZ 271;Dark v Willams & Kettle Ltd unreported, J Scott, 8 October 2003, AA 299A/03;Nelson v Porirua Community Law Research Centre Inc [1993] 2 ERNZ 1109;New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Ltd v Rimoni unreported, Y Oldfield, 27 October 2004, AA288A/04;PropertyIQ NZ Ltd v Vicelich [2012] NZHC 2016 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_382.pdf [pdf 170 KB] |