| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 257A/09 |
| Determination date | 31 July 2009 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | D Erickson, K Ashcroft ; T Drake, L Holley |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Busch v Zion Wildlife Gardens Ltd & Anor |
| Other Parties | Zion Wildlife Services Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for stay of proceedings – Applicant withdrew personal grievance instead pursuing High Court (“Court”) claim “for reinstatement of shareholdings and directorships” – Applicant sought stay of Authority matter, arguing causes of action in Court overlapped matters in respondent’s counterclaim – Authority found applicant filed proceedings in Court against number of respondents prior to lodging problem in Authority – First defendant in Court also first respondent in Authority – Second respondent in Authority not party to Court proceedings – Respondents’ counterclaim alleged applicant breached employment agreement (“EA”) causing financial loss – Respondents sought damages, and compliance order for return of property – Authority to determine whether Court proceedings dealt with substantially same questions so that continuation of Authority investigation unnecessarily duplicated proceedings – Applicant argued cancellation of tours claim only reviewable in Court as applicant held statutory role as MAF approved operator – Also argued property claim formed basis of tort claim in Court – Authority found default position for proceedings to continue – Authority found no basis for stay against second respondent as not party to Court proceedings – Found claim relating to security expenses could not be stayed as not addressed by applicant – Authority accepted scope of applicant’s licensed operator role likely to come up in Court proceedings – However, question whether applicant breached obligations to first respondent would not be addressed – Authority did not accept position with statutory responsibilities fell outside scope of Authority – Authority found relief sought in Court to restrain possession of property so broad did not relate to counterclaim – Authority found Court proceedings would not address whether EA breached and whether respondents entitled to relief – Authority found in event of stay respondent’s required to start over bringing fresh proceedings in Court – Found in circumstances could not be said respondents not prejudiced – Authority not satisfied Court proceedings dealt substantially with same questions as before Authority – Found continuation of Authority investigation not duplication of proceedings – Authority noted need to progress matter as inordinately long history in Authority – Application declined |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Cases Cited | Dark v Williams & Kettle Limited unreported, Colgan J, 26 March 2004, AC19/04 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 257a_09.pdf [pdf 22 KB] |