| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 66/09 |
| Determination date | 22 May 2009 |
| Member | G J Wood |
| Representation | E Strachan (in person) ; R Moodie |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Strachan v Moodie & Ors |
| Other Parties | Moodie, Moodie & Co Barristers and Solicitors |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application for removal to Employment Court (“EC”) - Applicant claimed employed by respondents, but not paid significant sums owing and unjustifiably constructively dismissed - Applicant sought removal under s178(2)(a), (b), and (d) Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) - Respondents indicated would abide by Authority’s determination - Respondents submitted Authority should determine employment relationship problems because no question of law, no urgency, and application abuse of process - Authority accepted respondents’ submission that applicant failed to identify questions of law - However, Authority found at least two important questions implicit in applicant’s application - Firstly, Authority accepted mixed question of fact and law in relation to status of unpaid observers in legal practices - Secondly, Authority found mixed question of fact and law whether 50/50 billing arrangement in legal practice constituted employment by senior partner of business - Both questions could affect large number of people - Grounds for removal under s178(2)(a) made out - Authority found no urgency, as employment relationship ended several years ago - Grounds for removal under s178(2)(b) not made out - Authority found applicant’s other alleged questions of law did not constitute questions of law but were factors to consider under s178(2)(d) - Parties accused each other of criminal conduct - Authority found allegations of such serious nature by legal professionals more appropriately heard in a formal court - Given ongoing disputes between parties, strong likelihood of challenge to Authority’s determination - Authority found likelihood of appeal negated benefit of Authority’s ability to deal with matter more quickly than EC - Grounds for removal under s178(2)(d) made out - Matter removed to EC |
| Result | Application granted ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s178;ERA s178(2)(a);ERA s178(2)(b);ERA s178(2)(d) |
| Cases Cited | Hanlon v International Educational Foundation (NZ) Inc [1995] 1 ERNZ 1 |
| Number of Pages | 3 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 66_09.pdf [pdf 13 KB] |