| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Christchurch 173 |
| Determination date | 26 August 2013 |
| Member | D Appleton |
| Representation | D Beck ; P Shaw |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | MacFarlane v Cantebury District Health Board |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application to reopen investigation - Dispute about whether entitlements could be transferred between jobs - New evidence - Multiple versions of offer letter - Final version discovered after Authority determination |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE:Presumption new evidence not fabricated. No deliberate withholding of evidence. Beyond reasonable diligence for applicant to search every file and paper to find letter applicant had no memory of. Low probability new evidence would have important influence on case. Unlikely miscarriage of justice would occur if investigation not reopened. Demands of justice would not be well served by reopening investigation. Application to reopen investigation declined. |
| Result | Application dismissed; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA Second Schedule |
| Cases Cited | Advkit Para Legal Services Ltd v Weston [2011] NZEmpC 117;Ladd v Marshall [1954] 3 All ER 745;MacFarlane v Cantebury District Health Board unreported, P Montgomery, 12 Oct 2009, CA49A/09;MacFarlane v Cantebury District Health Board unreported, P Montgomery, 4 Mar 2010, CA47/10;New Zealand Waterfront Workers Union v Ports of Auckland Limited [1994] 1 ERNZ;604;Ports of Auckland v New Zealand Waterfront Workers Union [1995] 2 ERNZ 85 |
| Number of Pages | 19 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Christchurch_173.pdf [pdf 294 KB] |