| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 329A/09 |
| Determination date | 05 October 2009 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | E Hartdegen ; R McIlraith, K Dunn |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Wee v Skycity Entertainment Group Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application for removal to Employment Court (“EC”) - Respondent did not oppose removal application - Authority previously declined applicant’s application for interim reinstatement - Applicant challenged determination to EC - Applicant sought removal of substantive issue on grounds EC already had before it proceedings between same parties involving similar or related issues - Claimed removal would allow all matters to be heard together in EC - Claimed removal addressed possibility of challenge to Authority determination of substantive matter - Claimed more cost effective for both parties if matter removed - Applicant claimed important questions of law involved - Authority found no questions of law raised - Found ground for removal under s178(2)(c) Employment Relations Act 2000 made out - Authority also of opinion that in all circumstances EC should determine matter - Application for removal granted - Matter removed to EC |
| Result | Application granted ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s178;ERA s178(2)(c);ERA s178(2)(d) |
| Cases Cited | Wee v Skycity Entertainment Group Ltd unreported, A Dumbleton, 11 Sep 2009, AA 329/09 |
| Number of Pages | 2 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 329a_09.pdf [pdf 10 KB] |