| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 151/08 |
| Determination date | 23 April 2008 |
| Member | D King |
| Representation | R Pool ; R Parmenter |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Dodson v Pulse Utilities New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Applicant claimed Authority had no jurisdiction to hear respondent’s counterclaims and sought them struck out – Authority found s161 Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) empowered Authority to make determinations about employment relationship problems – Applicant claimed case law authority that jurisdiction would not encompass claims arising from tortuous conduct – Respondent argued applicant made payment to self after employment ended – Found duty of fidelity ended with cessation of employment – Respondent claimed quasi-contract – Applicant claimed quasi-contract not a cause of action per se but label for several causes of action within broad heading of restitution – Authority noted did not have jurisdiction to hear claims in quasi-contract or restitution generally – Found s161(1)(r) ERA applied as claim not tortuous and related to employment relationship – Respondent also sought repayment of GST payments made to applicant during employment – Applicant argued no cause of action identified and obligation to repay GST arose independently of employment relationship – Respondent also sought PAYE payments made to applicant – Applicant argued respondent’s claim that had obligation to make PAYE payment to Inland Revenue Department arose independently of employment relationship – Authority found there may be evidence applicant employee at time payment made – Found circumstances under which invoices rendered and GST paid not clear – Authority concluded number of unclear and contested issues made strike out unsafe – Application for strike out dismissed |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s161;ERA s161(1)(r);Judicature Act 1908 s94A |
| Cases Cited | BDM Grange Ltd v Parker [2005] ERNZ 343;Waikato Rugby Union (Inc) v New Zealand Rugby Football Union (Inc) & Ors [2002] 1 ERNZ 752;Pain Management Systems (NZ) Ltd v McCallum unreported, Panckhurst J, 14 September 2001, HC Christchurch, CP 72/01 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 151_08.pdf [pdf 26 KB] |