| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2015] NZERA Auckland 351 |
| Determination date | 11 November 2015 |
| Member | TG Tetitaha |
| Representation | M Blake (in person) ; L Holley |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Blake v Processone Solutions Ltd (formerly known as Processone Ltd) |
| Summary | JURISDICTION - Whether New Zealand forum conveniens to hear claim - Respondent company registered in New Zealand - Applicant resided in Australia during employment - Employment agreement provided employment relationship governed by laws of State of New York |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -JURISDICTION: No evidence parties intended any other laws to apply than those referred to in employment agreement. Laws of State of New York applicable. Work carried out in Australia and United States. Applicant paid and administered by United States company. Applicant and most relevant witnesses reside in United States. Applicant has a remedy under New York law. Respondent will suffer unfair disadvantage if proceedings heard in New Zealand because likely actual employer is United States company. New Zealand not forum conveniens. No jurisdiction. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Statutes | ERA s130 - Employment Relations Authority Regs 2000 r19B - Human Rights Act 1993 s22 - Human Rights Act 1993 s26 |
| Cases Cited | Beale v Houghton [2002] 2 ERNZ 110 (EmpC);Bramwell v Pacific Lumber Co Ltd (1986) 1 PRNZ 307 (HC);Musashi Pty Ltd v Moore [2002] 1 ERNZ 203 (EmpC);Jardine Risk Consultant Ltd v Beal [2000] 1 ERNZ 405 (CA) |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2015_NZERA_Auckland_351.pdf [pdf 166 KB] |