Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No [2016] NZERA Auckland 53
Determination date 24 February 2016
Member Anna Fitzgibbon
Representation E Hartdegen ; J Rooney
Location Auckland
Parties James Hardy t/a Datcom Ltd v Visionstream Pty Ltd
Summary PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Applicant sought removal of matter to Employment Court on grounds important question of law likely to arise and matter of such nature and urgency that in public interest matter be removed
Abstract AUTHORITY FOUND –;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Question of law related to applicant’s status as employee or contractor. Question determinable by Authority. Nature of issues not urgent or of national importance. Authority well placed to consider factual basis of claim. Application for removal dismissed.
Result Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Main Category Practice & Procedure
Statutes ERA s6;ERA s6(2);ERA s161(1)(c);ERA s178(2);ERA s178(2)(a);ERA s178(2)(b);ERA s178(2)(d)
Cases Cited Hanlon v International Educational Foundation (NZ) Inc [1995] 1 ERNZ 1 (EmpC);McAlister v Air New Zealand Ltd EmpC Auckland AC22/05, 11 May 2005;Singh v Eric James & Associates Ltd [2010] NZEmpC 1
Number of Pages 5
PDF File Link: 2016_NZERA_Auckland_53.pdf [pdf 169 KB]