Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
Creedy v Commissioner of Police
19 Oct 2007, Elias CJ, McGrath, Anderson JJ, SC 57/2007, (2 pages)
SUPREME COURT – Practice and procedure – Application for leave to appeal Court of Appeal decision – Two questions of law – HELD – Application granted concerning “exceptional circumstances” test and Employment Court’s jurisdiction concerning review of Police Tribunal proceedings – Police sergeant
Result: Application granted ; No order for costs
F Fabbian Lighting (NZ) Ltd v La Cava & Anor
31 Oct 2007, L Robinson, AA 312A/07, (6 pages)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for removal to Employment Court – Preliminary issue determined by Authority challenged in Employment Court – Authority not persuaded question of law important or that arose other than incidentally – Steps taken material consideration as to whether Authority should exercise discretion of removal – Steps taken to date sufficiently advanced in investigation so as to preclude removal – However, preliminary determination subject of challenge in Employment Court involved “same or similar or related issues” to substantive investigation – Matter removed to Employment Court
Meere v Gifted Children's Advancement Charitable Trust Inc
4 May 2007, M Urlich, AA 139/07, (2 pages)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Discovery - Applicant sought disclosure of certain documents - Respondent claimed documents confidential - First document comprised of chairman of respondent's notes for personal use during restructuring presentation to staff - Second group of documents staff responses to redundancy consultation process - Responses recieved on basis would be confidential to submitting staff member and respondent - What decision-maker took into account and how reached conclusions tested in inquiry process required by s103A Employment Relations Act 2000 - Confidentiality not bar to relevancy of notes - Notes clearly relevant given chairman was decision-maker in redundancy process - Responses also relevant because were invited by respondent for purposes its deliberations on restructuring proposal which included applicant's position - Documents to be provided to applicant - Authority expected repondent Board's internal communications relating to restructuring to be provided to applicant - Non-publication orders to be made if appropriate
Result: Application granted ; Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved
O'Connell v Redpaths NZ Ltd
1 May 2007, YS oldfield, AA 133/07, (2 pages)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Whether accord and satisfaction - Alleged unjustified dismissal - Respondent advised would not participate in investigation because matter settled in full, and respondent had no assets and to be placed in liquidation - No appearance for respondent - Applicant and husband had owned shares in respondent - Parties entered written "understanding" - Gave evidence they gave undertaking that if terms of understanding honoured, would not pursue personal grievance - Claimed steps set out in understanding not completed by respondent, and concluded respondent unable or unwilling to comply with it - Insufficient evidence establishing understanding or oral undertakings amounted to accord - No evidence terms of agreement complied with - No accord and satisfaction - Applicant not barred from proceeding with grievance
Result: Question answered in favour of applicant
Sefo v Sealord Shellfish Ltd
25 Oct 2007, Shaw J, CC 19/07, (2 pages)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Nature and scope of hearing – Plaintiff elected non de novo challenge covering issues of suspension, contribution and reinstatement – Plaintiff sought to limit evidence to relevant passages in briefs of evidence and relevant documents before Authority with cross-examination – HELD – Court must have sufficient material before it to make decision – Evidence relating to issues could not be isolated – Matter to be heard as full rehearing – Issues to be decided were limited to suspension, contribution and reinstatement – Mussel opener
Result: Orders accordingly ; No order for costs
Service and Food Workers Union v Air New Zealand Ltd
29 Nov 2007, Y Oldfield, AA 375/07, (3 pages)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for adjournment – Applicant applied for facilitation before parties attempted mediation – Parties accepted need for, and attended, mediation – However, applicant sought to continue facilitation application in case outcome of talks not favourable – Respondent opposed adjournment – Submitted facilitation application could not be put aside in case of “rainy day” and applicant should either proceed with original application or acknowledge no basis for facilitation at this time and withdraw it – Applicant’s argument would effectively require Authority to accept facilitation application could be made on contingent basis, to be activated should circumstances develop to reach threshold in s50 Employment Relations Act 2000 – Not consistent with good faith approach to bargaining – Grounds in s50B couched in past tense and depended on preconditions having been met – Not appropriate to put application on hold in case preconditions met at future stage – Open to parties to apply again should circumstances change – Application for adjournment declined – Applicant withdrew application for facilitation
Result: Application dismissed ; Orders accordingly ; No order for costs
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
