Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No [2017] NZERA Auckland 76
Determination date 22 March 2017
Member V Campbell
Representation C Stewart ; J Rooney, C Blake
Location Auckland
Parties Lata v Auckland District Health Board
Summary PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Applicant sought removal of matter to Employment Court on grounds important question of law likely to arise, matter of such nature and urgency that in public interest matter be removed and in all circumstances matter should be removed
Abstract AUTHORITY FOUND -;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Fact respondent large public healthcare provider does not dictate public interest. No evidence that outcome of matter may affect thousands of employees. No urgency. No matter how claim framed applicant barred from receiving compensatory damages for personal injury. Clear authority on the damages for breach of good faith. Question of remedies not influential in determining substance of case. No important question of law. No inevitably to either party challenging Authority’s determination. Application for removal dismissed. Parties directed to mediation.
Result Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Main Category Practice & Procedure
Statutes Accident Compensation Act 2001 s317 ; ERA s113(1) ; ERA s159 ; ERA s178 ; ERA s178(2) ; ERA s178(2)(a) ; ERA s178(2)(b) ; ERA s178(2)(d)
Cases Cited Hall v Dionex Pty Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 29, (2015) 13 NZELR 157;Hally Labels Ltd v Powell [2015] NZEmpC 92;Hanlon v International Educational Foundation (NZ) Inc [1995] 1 ERNZ 1 (EmpC);Robinson v Pacific Seals New Zealand Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 99, [2014] ERNZ 813;Vice-Chancellor of Lincoln University v Stewart [2008] ERNZ 249 (EmpC)
Number of Pages 8
PDF File Link: 2017_NZERA_Auckland_76.pdf [pdf 118 KB]