| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 170/08 |
| Determination date | 17 December 2008 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | P Chemis , M Donovan ; A Drake |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Chini v Open Cloud NZ Ltd (formerly Open Cloud Ltd) |
| Summary | JURISDICTION – Authority to determine appropriate forum for applicant’s employment problem – Employment Agreement (“EA”) stated Californian law to apply – Authority satisfied if case heard in New Zealand (“NZ”) then Californian law would apply as that law chosen by parties – Respondent a NZ registered company operating out of NZ – Applicant employed to work in California – Respondent filed legal proceedings against applicant in California prior to applicant lodging statement of problem in Authority – Authority found principles for determining appropriate forum found in Oil Seed Products (NZ) Ltd v HE Burton Ltd (1987) 1 PRNZ 313 – Applicant accepted exclusive jurisdiction clause in EA and that work carried out in California suggested California appropriate forum – Applicant claimed respondent NZ company operating in NZ where three directors based, EA signed in NZ and respondent had no assets in California – Applicant also argued difficult to enforce judgment in California and counterclaim not available – Applicant also sought Authority ruling that respondent’s behaviour in initiating proceedings in California after applicant made claims “tactical” – Respondent argued contract for employment in California and work substantially performed there – Respondent also argued applicant paid in US dollars, subject to proceedings there and contract had American flavour such as termination at will – In response applicant argued terminology of contract referred to NZ provisions – Authority found clear from jurisprudence modern approach favoured dealing with issues in California – Furthermore, contract stated legal issues to be dealt with in California – Authority did not accept respondent’s behaviour “tactical” as simply insisted contract be followed – Authority concluded Californian Courts had most real and substantial connection with disputed events – Found looking at matter as whole, was clear California appropriate forum to deal with issues since was where work carried out and disputed events had effect – Application dismissed – Costs reserved |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Cases Cited | His Excellency the Governor of Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie, and Oeno Islands v Sutton [1994] 2 ERNZ 492 (CA);Singapore Airlines Limited v Rusli unreported, Joyce J, 12 November 2007, District Court Auckland, NP 1230/97;Royds v SAI (NZ) General Insurance Limited [1999] 1 ERNZ 820;Musashi Pty Ltd v Moore [2002] 1 ERNZ 203;Oil Seed Products (NZ) Limited v HE Burton Limited (1987) 1 PRNZ 313;BR Films Partnership G-38 v Spin Interactive Ltd unreported, Lang J, 25 July 2005, High Court Auckland, CIV-2005-404-2295;Jardine Risk Consultants Limited v Beal [2000] 1 ERNZ 405 (CA) |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 170_08.pdf [pdf 30 KB] |