| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2014] NZERA Auckland 111 |
| Hearing date | 22 Jan 2014 |
| Determination date | 26 March 2014 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | H White ; P Wicks |
| Parties | Pryce-Jones v Bomer and Ors |
| Other Parties | Rothesay Bay Physiotherapy (2000) Ltd, Rothesay Bay Physiotherapy Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Identity of employer - Whether applicant employed by first respondent - Whether applicant employed by respondents jointly - Re-opened investigation - Physiotherapist |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Nothing to indicate first respondent held self out to applicant as employer beyond citation of first respondent as employer in employment agreement. Inherently unlikely first respondent would bind self in personal capacity when applicant to work in practice operated by second respondent for eight years. Applicant not employed by first respondent. Fact first respondent sole director and shareholder of second and third respondents not determinative that applicant employed by second and third respondents jointly. Clearly defined and consistently maintained separation between activities of second and third respondents. Applicant not employed by second and third respondent's jointly. Applicant employed by second respondent. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | Companies Act 1955;Companies Act 1993 |
| Cases Cited | Colosimo v Parker (2007) 8 NZELC 98,622;Hutton v Provencocadmus Ltd (in rec) [2012] ERNZ 566;Orakei Group (2007) Ltd (formerly PRP Auckland Ltd) v Doherty (No 1) [2008] ERNZ 345;Pryce-Jones v Bomer [2013] NZERA Auckland 7 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2014_NZERA_Auckland_111.pdf [pdf 123 KB] |