Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No [2017] NZERA Auckland 119
Hearing date 18-Apr-17
Determination date 19 April 2017
Member R Arthur
Representation S Mitchell ; K Patterson
Location Auckland
Parties Findlay v Ports of Auckland Ltd
Summary PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Respondent sought to stay investigation meeting until Employment Court decided challenge to earlier determination
Abstract AUTHORITY FOUND -;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Challenge in Court relates to interim order and not substantive issues. Difficult to see how challenge in Court could result in material changes to Authority’s approach to substantive issues. Overlapping costs between Authority and Court preparation reduced because challenge in Court largely decided on documents already provided to Authority. Both parties will need to prepare for substantive investigation at some point. Inherent detriment to applicant if stay granted due to doubt and anxiety about what may happen. Application dismissed.
Result Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Main Category Practice & Procedure
Statutes ERA s160 ; ERA s161 ; ERA s161(1)(e) ; ERA s173 ; ERA s179 ; ERA s180
Cases Cited Abernethy v Dynea New Zealand Ltd [2007] ERNZ 271 (EmpC);Ale v Kids at Home Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 209;Asure New Zealand Ltd v New Zealand Public Service Association Inc [2005] ERNZ 747 (EmpC);Credit Consultants Debt Services NZ Ltd v Wilson [2007] ERNZ 205 (EmpC);Findlay v Ports of Auckland Ltd [2017] NZERA Auckland 80;New Zealand Cards Ltd v Ramsay [2013] NZCA 582;North Dunedin Holdings Ltd v Harris [2011] NZEmpC 118
Number of Pages 12
PDF File Link: 2017_NZERA_Auckland_119.pdf [pdf 128 KB]