Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No [2015] NZERA Auckland 132
Determination date 08 May 2015
Member TG Tetitaha
Representation M Smyth ; I M Gibson
Parties Flore v Pacific Gate Logistics Ltd
Summary PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Applicant sought to dismiss counterclaim on basis of being frivolous or vexatious – Whether Authority has jurisdiction to consider breaches of fiduciary duty by employees - Application sought further particularisation of counterclaim – Applicant sought further discovery – Applicant sought severance of counterclaim
Abstract AUTHORITY FOUND –PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Authority has jurisdiction to determine claims for breach of fiduciary duty. Counterclaim had evidential basis and did not contain patent or glaring error of law. No jurisdiction to consider alleged breaches of Rules of Conduct and Client Care for Lawyers. Proceedings not frivolous or vexatious under Judicature Act 1908 definition. No reason to order further particularisation as respondent’s evidence filed in advance. Application for further discovery refused as applicant failed to say what documents were sought, whether documents relevant and whether applicant tried to resolve issue by consent. Severing counterclaim would add significantly to costs and delays of determining both applications. Application dismissed.
Result Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Main Category Practice & Procedure
Statutes ERA s124;ERA s157(1);ERA s157(2)(a);ERA s157(3)(a);ERA s160(1)(f);ERA s161(r);ERA s221(1);ERA s221(1)(d);ERA Second Schedule cl12A;Judicature Act 1908 S88B;Rules of Conduct and Client Care for Lawyers R13.8
Cases Cited Creser v Tourist Hotel Corp of New Zealand [1990] 1 NZILR 1055 (LC);Jerram v Franklin Veterinary Service (1997) Ltd [2001] ERNZ 157 (EmpC);Hibernian Catholic Benefit Society v Hagai [2014] NZHC 24, (2011) 11 NZELR 534
Number of Pages 8
PDF File Link: 2015_NZERA_Auckland_132.pdf [pdf 159 KB]