| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 114D/07 |
| Hearing date | 19 Jul 2007 |
| Determination date | 07 September 2007 |
| Member | J Scott |
| Representation | M Hammond ; P Morgan, J Hardaker |
| Location | Hamilton |
| Parties | Hodgson v Parentline Charitable Trust |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application to strike out counterclaim seeking repayment of allegedly unauthorised salary increase – Strike out application filed and addressed part way through investigation meeting on substantive issues – Respondent’s submissions on application received after hearing on all matters concluded – Applicant submitted respondent’s case founded on fundamental error of reasoning drawn from documents founding claim and did not meet requisite standard of proof – Applicant did not establish counterclaim could not succeed – Submissions established two opposing views of claim; - Fact all evidence already heard confirmed Authority’s view matter should be dealt with as part of overall task of considering and arriving at findings and determinations in matter including credibility findings - Authority also had regard to broad powers to investigate a matter before it, untroubled by technicalities or the way parties have described matter, with a view to resolving employment relationship problem on the substantial merits – Application declined |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s162;High Court Rules rr 186 |
| Cases Cited | Clark v NCR [NZ] Corporation [2006] 1 ERNZ 401;Williams v Camira Furniture Ltd unreported, Y S Oldfield, 30 August 2007, AA 269/07;NZ (with exceptions) Shipwrights etc Union v NZ Amalgamated Engineering etc IUOW and Anor [1989] 3 NZILR 284;Silbey v Christchurch City Council [2002] 1 ERNZ 476 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 114d_07.pdf [pdf 21 KB] |