| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 44/08 |
| Determination date | 13 February 2008 |
| Member | M Urlich |
| Representation | M Ryan ; S Dench |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Chamberlain v ASB Bank Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Admissibility of evidence - Applicant alleged resigned after bank offered to pay him gratuity - Respondent submitted applicant rejected its offer by way of counter-offer contained in letter to- Letter made on without prejudice save as to costs basis - Whether letter admissible - Respondent argued without letter Authority would be misled or deceived - Also, applicant had attached respondent's without prejudice reply to statement of problem - Submitted without applicant's letter the reply could be misunderstood - Applicant contended letter not counter-offer but response to without prejudice meeting where he was invited to confirm remedies he sought - Authority held if applicant intended to argue resignation amounted to acceptance of respondent's initial offer then letter must be admitted - Whether contents amounted to counter-offer to be determined following investigation of substantive issues - To omit letter would deprive Authority of opportunity to consider all relevant evidence - Evidence to be admitted |
| Result | Orders accordingly ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Cases Cited | Cedenco Foods Ltd v State Insurance Ltd (1996) 10 PRNZ 142 |
| Number of Pages | 3 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 44_08.pdf [pdf 17 KB] |