| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Christchurch 248 |
| Hearing date | 13 Nov 2013 |
| Determination date | 03 December 2013 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | J Walker (in person) ; S Laing (in person) |
| Location | Queenstown |
| Parties | Walker v Laing and Ors |
| Other Parties | Liquid Frankton Ltd, Liquid Group Holdings Ltd (in liquidation), Mt Rosa Estate Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Identity of employer – First respondent director and / or shareholder of various companies – Applicant initially engaged by second respondent – Whether applicant transferred to new business – Applicant signed written employment agreement – Unclear whether third respondent employer – Applicant became responsible for management of vineyard owned by fourth respondent – Whether first respondent instructed applicant to draft new employment agreement and cite fourth respondent as employer – First respondent did not sign employment agreement |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;PRACTICE AND PROCEDRE: No evidence applicant and first respondent discussed or openly contemplated possibility first respondent employer. Difficult given evidence to conclude applicant employed by first respondent. Second respondent not employer given arrangement superseded. Applicant subsequently employed by third respondent. Agreement with third respondent superseded by agreement with fourth respondent. Respondent paid by fourth respondent before signing agreement. Parties aware of where payment came from. Applicant employed by fourth respondent. |
| Result | Application partially granted ; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | Companies Act 1993 s248(1)(c) |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Christchurch_248.pdf [pdf 150 KB] |