| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 109A/06 |
| Determination date | 06 June 2006 |
| Member | J Scott |
| Representation | C Gudsell ; A mcKay |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Paul v Waikato Honey Products Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application by respondent to reopen investigation – Original determination found respondent failed to pay applicant agreed payment of $2,000 – Was disagreement as to whether settlement contingent on successful outcome of varroa bee mite claim - Respondent forthcoming with new evidence which it alleged impacted on previous Authority determination - New evidence consisted of two letters - First letter was statement to bank as to how respondent expected to fund settlement - Did not support respondent’s position that such monies contingent on outcome of varroa bee mite claim – Second letter no relevance to application – Documents unlikely to have any influence on result of case were it to be reopened - No possibility of miscarriage of justice – Noted that was no conclusion to matter as was a challenge in Employment Court – Application dismissed - Chief Executive Officer |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA Second Schedule cl4 |
| Cases Cited | Auckland Limited v NZ Waterfront Workers Union [1995] 2 ERNZ 85, 88 ;;Squire v Waitaki NZ Refrigerating Limited [1985] ACJ 839, 842 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 109a_06.pdf [pdf 25 KB] |