| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 385A/04 |
| Determination date | 29 November 2004 |
| Member | L Robinson |
| Representation | T Drake ; C Patterson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Snaith and Anor v Stone and Associates Ltd |
| Other Parties | Smits |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Respondent had produced witness summonses to Authority support staff - Authority declined to issue them - Whether witness summonses should now be issued - Sought to summons three witnesses and have them produce documentation - Documentation unlikely to be obtained in three working days as sought - Appeared to be attempt to obtain discovery from multiple third parties - Application required for witness summonses - Authority's prerogative as to who it wished to hear from - Information sought by summonses could be properly elicited from applicants under oath - Authority could call for company and business records after investigation meeting - Application to issue summonses declined |
| Result | Application declined ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | EAR r22;EAR r23;EAR r24;ERA s157(2)(a);ERA s160;ERA s173(1)(a);ERA Second Schedule cl5 |
| Cases Cited | Lavery v Trust Bank Wellington Ltd [1994] 1 ERNZ 299;New Zealand Railways Corporation v Goston [1994] 1 ERNZ 237;Trotter v Telecom Corporation of NZ Ltd [1993] 2 ERNZ 659;United Food and Chemical Workers Union of NZ v Talley [1992] 1 ERNZ 756 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |