| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 61A/09 |
| Determination date | 10 March 2009 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | C Patterson ; J Langreiter |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Shale v Enduring Sales Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application to reopen Authority investigation - Applicant sought recall of determination ordering respondent pay applicant's costs but declining to make order joining respondent's director (L") to costs award - Authority found joinder order would have made L personally liable if respondent did not pay costs - Applicant argued two grounds for recall - Firstly, Authority member did not appear to consider application for joinder not opposed - Secondly, Authority member determined insufficient evidence to make joinder order without hearing from respondent - Authority found neither ground asserted determination contained accidental slip or error amounting to functus officio rule enabling Authority to recall determination and correct error - Authority found application better suited as application to reopen investigation - Authority found no properly admissible evidence why L should become liable with respondent for costs award - Authority found applicant still within statutory period to challenge Authority determination - Application to reopen Authority investigation declined" |
| Result | Application declined |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA Second Schedule cl 4 |
| Cases Cited | Shale v Enduring Sales Limited unreported, R Arthur, 24 Feb 2009, AA 61/09;Shale v Enduring Sales Limited unreported, R Arthur, 22 Dec 2008, AA 434/08 |
| Number of Pages | 2 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |