| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2015] NZERA Auckland 377 |
| Hearing date | 12 Dec 2014, 20 Mar 2015, 13 Apr 2015, 30 - 31 Jul 2015 and 20 Aug 2015 (6 days) |
| Determination date | 01 December 2015 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | P Dale, E Telle ; R Mansfield, A Schirnack |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Orduna Jr and Ors v Dotcom |
| Other Parties | Tactaquin, Relleve |
| Summary | JURISDICTION – Whether New Zealand forum conveniens to hear matter – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Identity of employer – Whether applicants employed by respondent or respondent’s wife |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –JURISDICTION: At time employment agreements (“EA”) entered into, respondent principally resident in Hong Kong. EA stated subject to Hong Kong law and Hong Kong selected as jurisdiction in which to resolve problems. Parties intended work to be performed primarily in Hong Kong with some work performed in New Zealand. After respondent became unable to leave NZ, work exclusively performed in NZ. Applicants then became subject to NZ tax rates and paid in NZ dollars. Respondent tried to draw up new EAs subject to NZ law. NZ law has closest and most real connection with employment dispute. Authority most convenient forum to hear dispute. Relevant law that of NZ. Jurisdiction to hear claim.PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: No mutual agreement to change employer. Parties never signed alternative EA. Respondent’s wife not employer. Applicants not jointly employed by respondent and respondent’s wife. Applicants employed by respondent. |
| Result | Applications granted ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Cases Cited | Clifford v Rentokil Ltd [1995] 1 ERNZ 407 (EmpC) ; Mehta v Elliott [2003] 1 ERNZ 451 (EmpC) ; Musashi Pty Ltd v Moore [2002] 1 ERNZ 203 (EmpC) |
| Number of Pages | 19 |
| PDF File Link: | 2015_NZERA_Auckland_377.pdf [pdf 211 KB] |