| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 104/05 |
| Hearing date | 9 Jun 2005 |
| Determination date | 28 July 2005 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | M White (in person) ; no appearance |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | White v Fellow Travel Inc |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Applicant sought to bring personal grievance and arrears claim against respondent - Respondent incorporated in Japan - In question of law referred from Authority, Employment Court found that Authority did not have jurisdiction to serve documents outside New Zealand - Amendments in December 2004 gave Authority jurisdiction to grant leave to serve documents overseas - Applicant's statement of problem served on respondent in Japan - JURISDICTION - No appearance by respondent - Respondent asserted in fax that Japanese law applicable and matter should be heard in Japan - Authority empowered to decline to hear and determine proceedings in which there was an overseas party if four conditions applied - No reason to doubt that applicant would receive proper justice and have fair opportunity to make his case if heard elsewhere - However could not be said respondent would suffer unfair disadvantage if proceedings heard in New Zealand so r19B(1) not applicable - Regulation 19B(2) stated regulation did not limit any rule of law - Well developed rules of law for determining jurisdictional issues - Applicant worked in New Zealand from June and October, in Canada from December to May, and in Japan between ski seasons - Employment agreement signed in Japan - Form and language of agreement did not reflect New Zealand laws - Could not be reasonably inferred that parties intended to be subject to New Zealand law - Not in interests of justice to require proceedings to be heard in New Zealand - No jurisdiction |
| Result | Orders accordingly ; No order for costs |
| Statutes | EAR r19B;EAR r19B(1);EAR r19B(2);Employment Contracts Act 1991;Employment Relations Authority Amendment Regulations 2004;Holidays Act 1981 |
| Cases Cited | Beale v Houghton [2002] 2 ERNZ 110;Clifford v Rentokil Ltd (NZ) [1995] 1 ERNZ 407 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 104_05.pdf [pdf 23 KB] |