| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 145/04 |
| Determination date | 27 April 2004 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | AM Boyle ; P Chemis |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Monnery v Empower Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application for removal to Employment Court - Respondent opposed application - Alleged question of law arose other than incidentally - Whether term should have been implied into applicant's employment agreement that should have been no cap on new business sales - Alleged substantial sum of money and possible Court might reach different decision on whether relevant term should have been implied into agreement - Alleged high likelihood of challenge - Alleged circumstances of case more suited to adversarial approach of Court - Law on implied terms clear - Authority should have determined disputed areas of fact at first instance - Nothing in case made it more amenable to adversarial process - Large sum of money not reason to remove to Court - Inevitability of challenge not accepted - Application for removal declined |
| Result | Application dismissed ; No order for costs |
| Statutes | ERA s178(2)(a) |
| Cases Cited | Hanlon v International Educational Foundation (NZ) Inc [1995] 1 ERNZ 1;NZ Amalgamated Engineering, Printing & Manufacturing Union Inc v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd [2002] 1 ERNZ 74 |
| Number of Pages | 2 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |