| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 62/10 |
| Determination date | 12 February 2010 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | D Organ ; M O'Brien |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Evolution E-Business Ltd v Smith |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for removal to Employment Court – Respondent sought entire matter removed to Court – Applicant sought respondent’s compliance with employment agreement (“EA”), inquiry into damages, and penalties for breaches of EA – Applicant opposed removal arguing no grounds present under s178(2)(a) Employment Relations Act 2000 (“ERA”) to allow removal – Authority previously declined applicant’s request for adjournment – Authority noted time of the essence with compliance applications more than other remedies – Authority noted unfortunate removal application being determined on eve of investigation meeting – Found application for removal of greater inconvenience when made closer to investigation meeting - Found ground for removal under s178(2)(d) ERA not present – Found premature to raise questions of law as being likely to arise other than incidentally – Found test under s178(2)(a) ERA was not complexity of legal issues but importance of legal issues – Found contended questions of law too remote to be considered to satisfy test under s178(2)(a) ERA – Found respondent’s actions appeared to be inconsistent with actions of party that had cancelled EA – Application for removal declined |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | Contractual Remedies Act 1979 s7;ERA s134;ERA s157(3);ERA s178;ERA s178(2);ERA s178(2)(a);ERA s178(2)(d) |
| Cases Cited | General Billposting Ltd v Atkinson [1909] AC 118 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 62_10.pdf [pdf 23 KB] |