E-Lighting v Dickens and Ors

Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No [2015] NZERA Auckland 119
Hearing date 21 Apr 2015
Determination date 23 April 2015
Member E Robinson
Representation D Fleming ; T Oldfield, P Davey
Location Auckland
Parties E-Lighting v Dickens and Ors
Other Parties Peter, Hunza Production Ltd
Summary COUNTERCLAIM - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Third respondent sought to strike out penalty claim – Whether case against third respondent frivolous or vexatious – Whether arguable case that third respondent aided and abetted first and second respondents’ breaches of duty of fidelity in applicant’s employment agreement
Abstract AUTHORITY FOUND –COUNTERCLAIM - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Applicant unable to provide clear evidence third respondent aided and abetted first and second respondents’ breaches of duty of fidelity, although inferences of such behaviour by third respondent could be made. Authority could not determine whether applicant’s penalty claim would succeed without such evidence. Claim not frivolous due to inferences of third respondent aiding and abetting. Application to strike out penalty claim dismissed against third respondent.
Result Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Main Category Practice & Procedure
Statutes ERA s134(2);ERA Second Schedule cl12A;Crimes Act 1961 s66
Cases Cited Creser v Tourist Hotel Corporation of New Zealand [1990] 1 NZILR 1055 (LC);E-Lighting v Dickens [2015] NZERA Auckland 61;New Zealand (with exceptions) Shipwrights Union v New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering IUOW and Steiner and Spartan Engineering (1989) ERNZ Sel Cas 516;Newick v Working in Ltd [2012] NZEmpC 156, [2012] ERNZ 510;Norman v Mathews [1916] 85 LJKB 857;STAMS v MM Metals Ltd [1993] 1 ERNZ 115 (EmpC);Wally Sutherland Ltd v Subaru (Australia) Pty Ltd HC Auckland CP211/SW99, 22 November 1999;Xu v McIntosh [2004] 2 ERNZ 448 (EmpC)
Number of Pages 8
PDF File Link: 2015_NZERA_Auckland_119.pdf [pdf 172 KB]
Return to search screen