| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2016] NZERA Auckland 134 |
| Determination date | 03 May 2016 |
| Member | Andrew Dallas |
| Representation | M Moncur ; M Quigg |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Broadhurst v Premier Business Forms NZ |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to re-open investigation – Application for joinder – Whether s248(1)(c)(i) Companies Act 1993 prevented Authority from re-opening investigation – Printer |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Former respondent company in solvent liquidation was not applicant’s employer. Re-opening of Authority’s investigation did not disturb or affect rights of secured creditors. Former respondent seeking to shield itself using s248(1)(c)(i) Companies Act 1993 artificial statutory interpretation. Section 248(1)(c) Companies Act 1993 does not prevent Authority from re-opening investigation. Appropriate to join respondent to applicant’s employment relationship problem. Unfair and inequitable to require applicant to re-file personal grievance claim. Applications granted. |
| Result | Applications granted ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | Companies Act 1993 s248;Companies Act 1993 s248(1)(c);Companies Act 1993 s248(1)(c)(i);ERA s6;ERA s160(1)(a);ERA s174B;ERA s221;ERA s221(a);ERA Second Schedule cl1;ERA Second Schedule cl4 |
| Cases Cited | Goel v Director-General for Primary Industries [2015] NZEmpC 54;Newick v Working In Ltd (in liq) [2013] NZEmpC 132;Pacific Holdings Ltd v Hudson New Zealand Ltd HC Auckland CIV-2005-404-531, 8 September 2005;Park v K & C Howick Ltd t/a Howick Kim's Club (in liquidation) ERA Auckland AA247/07, 14 August 2007 |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2016_NZERA_Auckland_134.pdf [pdf 241 KB] |