| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 76/04 |
| Hearing date | 30 Jun 2004 |
| Determination date | 16 July 2004 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | J Butler (in person) ; J Waterworth |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Butler and Anor t/a Butlers Fruit Farms v Lines (Labour Inspector) |
| Other Parties | Butler |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Late objection lodged to demand notice - Applicant had intentionally not opened demand notice until 28th day - Objection filed 4 days late - Authority had power to extend time to file objection to demand notice - Overriding consideration whether justice of case required extension to time limit - Although delay not substantial was not excusable - Applicant had opportunity to put arguments and views of matter and documentation to respondent during months prior to demand notice - Justice of case did not require extension to time limit - Application dismissed |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s179(2);ERA s219;ERA s221;ERA s224;ERA s225(2);Employment Relations (Prescribed Matters) Regulations 2000;Holidays Act 1981 |
| Cases Cited | Pacific Plastic Recyclers Ltd v Foo [2002] 2 ERNZ 75;Stevenson v Hato Paora College Trust Board [2002] 2 ERNZ 103 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |