| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 51A/08 |
| Determination date | 02 April 2008 |
| Member | M Urlich |
| Representation | L Ponniah, P Revell ; G Brant, B Toy-Cronin |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Kirkley v Ora Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Respondent applied for recall of determination AA 51/08, specifically paragraph 132 - Respondent submitted reimbursement of lost wages should have been for three months, not four months as stated in determination - Applicant objected to recall - Authority found situation fell within third category of recall as laid down in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632, that was justice required determination be recalled - Applicant successful in claim for lost wages - Statement of claim stated paid for three months of six month sabbatical period - Order applicant entitled to be reimbursed four months of that period wrong - Paragraph 132 of determination AA 51/08 amended |
| Result | Application granted ; Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Cases Cited | Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 |
| Number of Pages | 2 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 51a_08.pdf [pdf 14 KB] |