| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 105/07 |
| Hearing date | 28 Aug 2007 |
| Determination date | 30 August 2007 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | D Beck ; J Goldstein |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Innes v Miyazawa |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application to strike out - Identity of employer - Grievance initially filed against company but amended statement of problem named respondent as employer - Respondent contended applicant proceeding against him because company in liquidation - Applicant accepted originally employed by company - Alleged employer changed by agreement and respondent crystallised new obligation by making wage payments to him - Document relied on by applicant not signed by employer party and referred to trading name only - Not helpful in identifying employer - No agreement between parties - Applicant’s alternative argument seeking to lift corporate veil outside scope of preliminary question and not addressed - On balance of probabilities no tenable case for contention applicant employed by respondent - Applicant’s failure to explain all documentation describing another entity as employer was fatal flaw - Applicant senior employee and reasonable to expect he understood who employer was - Payments by respondent not evidence of wider obligation - Justice of case did not require it to proceed - Application to strike out granted - Business manager |
| Result | Orders accordingly ; Application struck out ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | Companies Act 1993 s25;Companies Act 1993 s25(2) |
| Cases Cited | New Zealand (with exceptions) Shipwrights etc Union v New;Zealand Amalgamated Engineering etc IUOW [1989] 3 NZILR 284 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 105_07.pdf [pdf 32 KB] |