| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 232/06 |
| Determination date | 05 July 2006 |
| Member | L Robinson |
| Representation | J Hannan |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | A v X and Ors |
| Other Parties | Y, Z |
| Summary | INJUNCTION - JURISDICTION - Applicant applied for ex parte Anton Piller order against respondents - Anton Piller order an interim injunction and an invasive and extreme order - Authority had since its inception granted Anton Piller orders on basis of ss162 and 221 Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA") - Recently High Court in BDM Grange v Parker (cited below) rejected proposition that Authority had jurisdiction to grant Anton Piller orders - More recently Employment Court in Greenlea Premier Meats Ltd v New Zealand Meat & Related Trades Union Inc (cited below) expressed doubt that Authority had power to grant injunctive relief other than interim reinstatement - No doubt that Authority did not possess any inherent jurisdiction to make injunctive orders - Arguable though that jurisdiction to make injunctive orders was delegated to Authority expressly by s162 ERA under which in relation to employment agreements Authority could make any order that High Court could make relating to contracts - Authority was intended to be first port of call for resolution of employment relationship problems and its problem-solving function should be exhausted before involvement of higher judicial institutions - This emphasised by recent amendment s143(fa) ERA - Undesirable and unnecessary duplication for parties to have to seek relief from multiple institutions - Authority had express power to deal with ex parte applications as confirmed by recent amendment s173(2C) ERA - Authority of view that s173(2C) was legislative recognition of ex parte injunctive relief Authority had issued since inception - Issue of Authority's power to grant injunctive relief required clarification by higher Courts, or may be best resolved by Legislature - Authority had to stand by what had already been decided - Not sufficient certainty to safely grant applicant's application - Declined - Authority expected that applicant would now pursue relief elsewhere so names of parties prohibited from publication - Substantive matters remained properly in Authority's jurisdiction" |
| Result | Application dismissed ; No order for costs |
| Statutes | ERA s143(fa);ERA s161(1)(r);ERA s162;ERA s173;ERA s173(2C);ERA s221;ERA Second Schedule cl10 |
| Cases Cited | BDM Grange Ltd v Parker [2005] 1 ERNZ 343;Greenlea Premier Meats Ltd v New Zealand Meat & Related Trades Union Inc [2006] ERNZ 312;Jerram v Franklin Veterinary Services (1977) Ltd [2001] 1 ERNZ 157;Keys v Flight Centre (NZ) Ltd [2005] 1 ERNZ 471 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 232_06.pdf [pdf 117 KB] |