| Summary |
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application to strike out proceedings by first respondent (D") - D also sought costs - Application on basis of a want of prosecution and/or applicant failed to properly identify cause of action - Unjustified disadvantage - Applicant claimed delays, if any, were not of his making - In alternative claimed were not exclusively of his making, and D ought to have made clear so could remedy problem - D sought to have second and third respondents removed from proceedings - Applicant alleged ought to remain as parties because fell within s134(2) Employment Relations Act 2000 ("ERA"), being persons who incited breach of employment agreement - Authority reluctant to find officers of D, acting within normal roles as senior employees could be found to be in breach of s123(2) ERA - Unfair and unjust to direct removal without hearing them and giving applicant and D opportunity to test their evidence - Second and third respondents directed to remain parties - Delays in matter unacceptable - Matter finely balanced - Justice of case required applicant be given one further opportunity to put claim - Strike out application declined - Parties directed to prepare, file and serve documents for investigation meeting" |