| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2016] NZERA Christchurch 203 |
| Determination date | 15 November 2016 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | D Beard ; M MacDonald |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Tradefog Global Co. Ltd & Anor v Bartholomeusz |
| Other Parties | Tradefog International Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Applicants sought removal of matter to Employment Court (“EC”) on ground important question of law likely to arise, EC already had before it proceedings between same parties involving same or similar issues, matter of such nature and urgency that in public interest matter be removed and in all circumstances matter should be determined by EC |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Important questions of law do not arise other than incidentally. Matter not of such urgency and nature that public interest in removal. Same or similar proceedings before EC but application for removal brought at very late state. Most cost effective process would be for Authority to determine matter after challenge completed. Not appropriate in all circumstances that matter be heard by EC. Application for removal dismissed. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s67A ; ERA s67A(2) ; ERA s67A(2)(c) ; ERA s67B ; ERA s178 ; ERA s178(2) ; ERA s178(2)(a) ; ERA s178(2)(b) ; ERA s178(2)(c) ; ERA s178(2)(d) |
| Cases Cited | Auckland District Health Board v X (No 2) [2005] ERNZ 551 (EmpC) ; Hanlon v International Educational Foundation (NZ) Inc [1995] 1 ERNZ 1 (EmpC) ; Smith v Stokes Valley Pharmacy [2010] NZEmpC 111, [2010] ERNZ 253 ; Bartholomeusz v Tradefog Global Co Ltd [2016] NZERA Christchurch 120 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2016_NZERA_Christchurch_203.pdf [pdf 222 KB] |