| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 226/10 |
| Hearing date | 30 Apr 2010 - 10 May 2010 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 13 May 2010 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | GM Smith ; L Mearns |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Smith v Blossom Wool 2007 Ltd |
| Summary | JURISDICTION – Whether respondent applicant’s employer – Applicant claimed respondent became applicant’s employer pursuant to shareholders agreement between parties – Respondent argued no employment relationship formed as agreement contingent on funding being available – Applicant and business partner (“M”) entered into shareholding agreement to form respondent company – Applicant and M directors of respondent - Agreement provided on expiry of applicant’s services contract with company respondent would employ applicant subject to available funding to respondent – Parties subsequently agreed to contribute funding however contribution never made – Applicant claimed M’s son (“X”) wrote letter to bank confirming respondent applicant’s employer – Respondent argued X wrote letter on applicant’s instructions and did not check whether letter true – Authority found could not be inferred that employment relationship materialised out of expression of intention by parties – Found evidence undertaking performed needed – Found letter written upon applicant’s instructions to obtain mortgage – Found X did so without knowledge of whether respondent applicant’s employer – Found no payments made under contended employment agreement - Found extremely unlikely respondent would offer applicant employment when no funding made to respondent – Found any failure to perform agreement not matter for Authority – Found no employment relationship between parties – No jurisdiction |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Main Category | Jurisdiction |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 226_10.pdf [pdf 22 KB] |