Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No [2014] NZERA Auckland 500
Determination date 05 December 2014
Member J Crichton
Representation E Groves (in person) ; P Wicks ; R McIlraith (counsel for second respondent)
Location Auckland
Parties Groves v Ballance Agri-Nutrients Ltd and Anor
Other Parties McVeagh
Summary COUNTERCLAIM – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – First respondent sought order applicant’s claim frivolous or vexatious – Mediated settlement agreement – JURISDICTION – Whether applicant in employment relationship with second respondent
Abstract AUTHORITY FOUND –;COUNTERCLAIM – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Matters in applicant’s second statement of problem subject to full and final settlement reached after first statement of problem filed in Authority. Settlement finalised under s 149 Employment Relations Act 2000 entered into six years ago when applicant represented by experienced counsel. Terms of settlement performed. Allowing applicant’s claim to proceed would be frivolous in sense of being futile. Applicant’s claim frivolous.;JURISDICTION: Applicant never employee of second respondent. No jurisdiction to consider claim against second respondent.
Result Application granted (counterclaim – practice and procedure) ; Application dismissed (jurisdiction) ; Costs reserved
Main Category Practice & Procedure
Statutes Contractual Remedies Act 1979;ERA;ERA s149;ERA s149(3);ERA Second Schedule cl12A
Cases Cited Harris v Birchwood Farm Holdings Ltd [2002] 2 ERNZ 392;Marlow v Yorkshire New Zealand Ltd [2000] 1 ERNZ 206;Rickards v Ruapehu District Council [2003] 1 ERNZ 400;STAMS v MM Metals Ltd [1993] 1 ERNZ 115;Young v Board of Trustees of Aorere College [2013] NZEmpC 111
Number of Pages 8
PDF File Link: 2014_NZERA_Auckland_500.pdf [pdf 222 KB]