| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 8/03 |
| Determination date | 03 February 2003 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | R Connor ; G Malone |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Huggins v Vanessa Brough t/a Stand 'n' Tan Beauty Therapists |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Identity of employer - Preliminary matter - Respondent alleged company was employer - Respondent named in employment agreement - Not clear to applicant that employer was company - Payment of wages by company not determinative - Failed to disclose acting on behalf of company when entering employment agreement - Doctrine of undisclosed principal applied - Applicant could bring proceedings against respondent or company |
| Result | Application dismissed ; No order for costs |
| Statutes | ERA s65 |
| Cases Cited | Kruesi v Hamua Holdings Ltd [1992] 3 ERNZ 135 |
| Number of Pages | 3 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |