Injunction - Employment Relations Act 2000
Jinkinson v Oceana Gold (New Zealand) Ltd
27 Jun 2007, P Cheyne, CA 70/07, (5 pages)
INJUNCTION - Interim reinstatement - Applicant made redundant after role disestablished and not selected for redeployment - Respondent accepted arguable case in relation to justification for dismissal and redeployment issue - Applicant claimed would suffer hardship if not reinstated but almost no evidence to establish extent - Respondent experienced staff turnover in positions suitable for applicant - Applicant argued availability of positions meant interim reinstatement could be ordered without negative impact on third parties or respondent - However, also meant not a case where interim reinstatement required to preserved remedy as respondent able to accommodate order for reinstatement just as easily in future - Most significant factors were delay in seeking interim reinstatement and relatively short time until substantive investigation - No compelling case for reinstatement before substantive determination in light of delays - Respondent also submitted interim reinstatement would be disruptive to current team - Applicant's undertaking not likely to be adequate remedy for such damage - Balance of convenience favoured respondent - Criticism respondent would not attend mediation until directed to did not advance applicant's application - Application for interim reinstatement declined - Grade Control Sampler
Result:
Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
back to top
Takarua v Te Aute College Board of Trustees and Anor
14 Mar 2008, G J Wood, WA 28/08, (1 pages)
INJUNCTION - Application for interim reinstatement dismissed - Reasons to be provided later
Result:
Application dismissed ; No order for costs
back to top
Unite Union Inc & Ors v Gateway Motel Ltd
5 Sep 2007, L Robinson, AA 276/07, (4 pages)
INJUNCTION - Applicants sought urgent interlocutory orders preventing termination of all members of first applicant currently locked out by respondent and restraining respondent from contracting out catering services until substantive matters could be determined - Order preventing dismissal sought ex parte, and five more employee applicants added to claim - Dismissal letters already sent by respondent - Authority exercised discretion to resolve employment relationship problem however described and dealt with matter as application for reinstatement of employee applicants - Application for ex parte orders misconceived because what was feared appeared to be reality - Not necessary to proceed without notice because no risk notice would cause respondent to do what applicant sought to prevent - Proper applicants proceed by way of application for interim reinstatement and on notice to respondent - Authority declined to make orders sought ex parte - Application to be served on respondent - Parties directed to make themselves immediately available to discuss further steps in investigation
Result:
Application dismissed ; Orders accordingly ; No order for costs
