| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 118A/04 |
| Hearing date | 21 Sep 2004 |
| Determination date | 27 September 2004 |
| Member | P Montgomery |
| Representation | S Vidal ; B Boivin |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Le Prou v Taupiri Tavern (1996) Ltd and Anor |
| Other Parties | Howey |
| Summary | INJUNCTION - Application for interim reinstatement - Applicant sole director of and shareholder of first respondent - Second respondent estranged husband - Incident with second respondent - Received letter terminating employment for alleged serious misconduct - Served with trespass notice for business premises - Applicant sought interim reinstatement - Serious question to be tried as to whether dismissal justified - No income following dismissal so no alternative remedy to interim reinstatement - As permanent reinstatement ultimate objective balance of convenience lay in applicant's favour - Overall justice required interim reinstatement - Applicant not required to attend business premises pending final resolution - First respondent to continue to pay applicant's salary - Massage parlour manager |
| Result | Application granted ; Interim reinstatement ordered ; No order for costs |
| Statutes | ERA s127(5) |
| Cases Cited | Baker v Armourguard Security Ltd [1998] 1 ERNZ 424;X v Y Ltd and New Zealand Stock Exchange [1992] 1 ERNZ 863 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |