| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 365/08 |
| Hearing date | 20 Oct 2008 |
| Determination date | 23 October 2008 |
| Member | L Robinson |
| Representation | T Drake ; P Swarbrick, P Mudaliar |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Oldco Pty Ltd v Houston |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application for removal to Employment Court (“EC”) - Applicant sought removal on ground EC had proceedings before it between same parties and involving same or similar or related issues - Parties had been party to previous Authority investigation under challenge - Applicant claimed not in position to pursue counter-problem for damages against respondent in previous investigation because of commercial sensitivities - Claimed when pleaded claim for damages against applicant in challenge to EC, respondent objected - Applicant claimed present application an alternative to strike-out application by respondent - Respondent opposed application for removal - Respondent claimed Authority best suited to assess factual issues - Claimed matters never put to respondent and had been no discussion between parties about them - Claimed situation unfair to respondent if had no right to challenge or appeal any factual findings EC would make - Respondent claimed no overlap of issues before EC and Authority - Authority found distinction to be made between issues" and "causes of action" - Authority found purpose of s178 Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) was about practicalities - Found undesirable to have unnecessary duplication of proceedings and discordant factual findings - Authority found challenge to Authority determination was about whether respondent resigned - Found Authority investigation if matter not removed would be about damages - Authority not persuaded would be any unnecessary or undesirable duplication - Authority satisfied matter could not be removed under s178(2)(c) ERA - Authority considered grounds for removal under s178(2)(d), that is in all circumstances EC should determine matter, not made out - Authority found not reasonable applicant be deprived of entitlement to first instance non-adversarial investigation because applicant could not proceed initially to pursue counter-problem in previous investigation - Application for removal to EC dismissed" |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Orders made ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s178;ERA s178(2)(c);ERA s178(2)(d) |
| Cases Cited | Auckland District Health Board v X [2005] 1 ERNZ 551;The Department for Courts v Crofts unreported, RA Monaghan, 14 Aug 2001, AA 113/01;Houston v Oldco PTI Ltd unreported, M Urlich, 20 Jun 2007, AA 184/07;Miller v Michael Pearcy Investments Ltd t/a Field Maple unreported, P Montgomery, 3 Oct 2005, CA 78A/05;Oldco PTI Ltd v Houston unreported, Couch J, 25 Aug 2008, AC 26/08;Rooney Earthmoving Ltd v McTague & Ors [2007] ERNZ 356 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 365_08.pdf [pdf 32 KB] |