| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 316/03 |
| Hearing date | 18 Oct 2003 |
| Determination date | 23 October 2003 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | T Field ; G Swanepoel |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Evans v Spick and Anor t/a S & S Lawns |
| Other Parties | Spick |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application to have investigation reopened - Did not appear at substantive investigation meeting - No statement in reply - Reasons for non-appearance amounted to defence that should have been set out at original investigation meeting - Pattern of behaviour which was more contemptuous than ignorant - No miscarriage of justice - Substantive determination gained by default - Needed to show substantial ground of defence and reasonable explanation for non-appearance - Explanation for non-appearance not credible - No defence to substantive claim - Application declined |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | Cavalier Carpets of NZ Ltd v NZ (except Taranaki etc) Woollen Mills etc IUOW [1989] 2 NZILR 378;J S Whyte Ltd v Wellington District Hotel etc IUOW [1984] ACJ 995;Nationwide Horse Transport Ltd v Gregory [1994] 1 ERNZ 440;Ports of Auckland Ltd v New Zealand Waterfront Workers' Union [1995] 2 ERNZ 85;Unkovich v Inspector of Awards [1985] ACJ 287 |
| Number of Pages | 3 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |