| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 153A/05 |
| Determination date | 17 August 2005 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | AS Shore (in person) ; JM Trotman |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Shore v Aqua-Cool Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application for reopening of investigation - Applicant did not appear at investigation meeting and application was dismissed - Applicant alleged matter should be reopened because an attachment to one of the briefs of evidence was not supplied within the agreed timetable and prior to the investigation taking place - Applicant had formed view that if all information had not been exchanged investigation would not go ahead - Unfortunate misperception and one that could have readily been rectified by his contacting the Authority - Was made clear, particularly to lay participants that if they were uncertain about matters of procedure, the Authority's support staff would assist them - Applicant should have come to Investigation and raised concerns then - Respondent did have substantial ground of defence - Whilst respondent would not suffer irreparable injury would be put to much inconvenience and unnecessary cost - Not of view than non-appearance could be reasonably explained - Application dismissed |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Cases Cited | J S Whyte Ltd v Wellington District Hotel etc IUOW [1984] ACJ 995;United Painting & Decorating Company Ltd v Toa unreported, Travis J, 16 August 1999, AC 62/99;Unkovich v Inspector of Awards [1985] ACJ 287 |
| Number of Pages | 3 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |