| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 215/09 |
| Determination date | 14 December 2009 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | L Andersen ; J Beck |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Mason v K |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to reopen investigation – Applicant argued determination obtained by default and miscarriage of justice because applicant not respondent’s employer – Respondent argued determination not obtained by default and applicant’s non-participation was conscious choice – Respondent denied knowledge applicant not employer – Respondent claimed employed by applicant personally, paid by applicant personally, and had no knowledge of company – Applicant claimed business operated by company and wages paid through company – Authority preferred respondent’s evidence mainly paid in cash and in employment relationship with applicant – Applicant failed to claim not employer during previous investigation – Applicant did not appear at original investigation meeting but had some part in process – Applicant’s argument unwell and precluded from dealing appropriately with matter rejected by Authority – Found no realistic possibility of miscarriage of justice – Found original decision of Authority fair and balanced – Found applicant failed to deal with matter in timely fashion – Application to reopen investigation declined |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Cases Cited | Cuttance v Purkiss [1994] 2 ERNZ 321;Eastern Bay Independent Industrial Workers’ Union Inc v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd unreported, V Campbell, AA 322/06;Ports of Auckland Ltd v NZ Waterfront Workers’ Union [1995] 2 ERNZ 85;Reid v New Zealand Fire Service Commission (No 2) [1998] 3 ERNZ 1237;Yang v Allen unreported, V Campbell, AA 63/08 |
| Number of Pages | 9 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 215_09.pdf [pdf 28 KB] |