Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
Adams v Land Transport New Zealand
23 Nov 2006, P Montgomery, CA 161/06, (3 pages)
INJUNCTION - Application for interim reinstatement - Applicant 64 years old and alleged inability to secure alternative employment meant would need to sell house if not reinstated - Balance of convenience appeared to favour applicant - Dismissed for theft and failure to follow policies - Respondent claimed no longer had trust and confidence in applicant to carry out duties, particularly as large percentage of his time spent out of office - Authority had particular regard to allegation applicant deleted work files from computer after dismissal - If proven, action lent weight to respondent's concerns regarding applicant's trustworthiness if reinstated - Adequate alternative remedies available - Although not determinative, Authority also had regard to applicant's ability to meet undertaking - Applicant had moderately strong arguable case but considering untested evidence regarding file deletion and other post dismissal discoveries, Authority found strong, foreseeable likelihood permanent reinstatement would be declined - Interim reinstatement declined - Parties directed to urgent mediation - Substantive investigation meeting to be held at earliest possible opportunity - Costs to be dealt with in conjunction with substantive matter
Result: Application dismissed ; Parties directed to mediation ; Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved
Brown v The Waiapu Anglican Social Services Trust Board
10 Oct 2006, GJ Wood, WA 135/06, (8 pages)
INJUNCTION - Interim reinstatement sought - Alleged unjustified dismissal - Serious misconduct - Applicant dismissed after investigation into client's allegation she accepted substantial gifts and was made beneficiary in his will - Under employment agreement not able to accept gifts and to inform of difficulties with clients - Applicant disputed whether guilty of misconduct alleged and dismissed on matter relating to credibility between herself and client when never met face-to-face with respondent to put forward her side of story - Issue of credibility between herself and client not discussed with respondent - Arguable case - Damages not adequate alternative remedy since applicant genuinely sought reinstatement - Applicant would suffer economic and personal hardship - Could be allocated other clients - However, if granted, applicant would be care giving unsupervised - Failed to inform respondent accepted gifts, engaged in commercial transaction, and made beneficiary of client - Admitted breached house rules - Provisionally, such acts and omissions material to interim and full reinstatement claim - Applicant appeared to have strong case since not personally interviewed and credibility between herself and client not tested - Determination would be dealt with promptly - Balance of convenience narrowly favoured respondent - Overall justice of matter favoured respondent - Name and details of client prohibited from publication - Application declined
Result: Application dismissed ; Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved
Winterburn v The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand
18 Aug 2006, P R Stapp, WA 114/06, (10 pages)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - By consent Authority ordered medical evidence suppressed from publication and restricted use to parties in proceedings until matter fully heard - Affidavits and documents used in proceedings also suppressed until matter fully heard except for matters reported in determination - INJUNCTION - Interim reinstatement - Alleged unjustified summary dismissal - Applicant sent emails alleging bullying and racism by manager ("Y") - Following mediation, applicant's complaints not investigated further as no details provided and she made no formal complaint - Dismissed for breach of disciplinary policy following complaint by Y about her conduct in relation to allegations - Applicant did not reasonably provide details of allegations when asked and position likely to be weak - Dismissal procedure not likely prejudicial - Issue whether respondent had grounds to reasonably conclude serious misconduct - Arguable case - Alternative remedies existed if applicant successful - Investigation meeting to be provided quickly - Active management of applicant would be required - Applicant made further allegations about institutional racism and other colleagues - Y's health affected by work environment involving applicant - Other staff unwilling to work with applicant - Did not seek reinstatement to same position and unclear how would be assisted - Balance of convenience favoured respondent - No prejudice to applicant given likelihood practicability of reinstatement and contribution would need to be considered - Application declined - Parties directed to mediation by consent
Result: Application dismissed ; Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
