Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
Association of Professionals and Executive Employees Inc v Canterbury District Health Board
1 Oct 2007, J Crichton, CA 118/07, (6 pages)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Discovery – Parties entered into Life Preserving Services Agreement (“LPSA”) to facilitate provision of services during strike – Applicant alleged respondent breached LPSA and duty of good faith – Matter set down for investigation meeting – Parties exchanged correspondence regarding discovery – Rather than responding to applicant’s request for information, respondent indicated not in position to respond until applicant had responded to its request – Applicant requested disclosure of four categories of document – Respondent objected to disclosure – Contended documents not relevant, subject to patient confidentiality and applicant not entitled to documents under LPSA – Natural justice required discovery – Parties entitled to opponent’s documents unless special circumstances or documents not relevant – Whether document relevant depended on whether it related to dispute – Difficult to see how applicant could satisfy itself documents relevant without first examining them – Authority accepted applicant’s contention that patient notes best evidence – Source of request not determinative – LPSA could not be read to mean applicant could not apply for discovery because of effect of provision in LPSA – Applicant entitled to discovery of information sought to appropriately progress claim – Respondent directed to discover documents
Result: Application granted ; Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved
Duigan v The British High Commission
13 Mar 2007, RA Monaghan, AA 67/07, (3 pages)
RAISING PERSONAL GRIEVANCE - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Applicant submitted personal grievance in 1997 - Took matter no further until October 2006 when filed statement of problem in Authority - Authority drew applicant's attention to Limitation Act 1950 - Proceedings initiated nearly nine years after cause of action accrued - Applicant claimed too distressed to take claim further and lacked funds to pay solicitors to continue to act - On two previous occasions applicant obtained blank statement of problem forms but did not file anything as felt meeting respondent and Authority would cause her to become distressed and emotional - No evidence provided to establish circumstances fell within s24 Limitation Act - No evidence of psychiatric or psychological cause leading to inability to initiate proceedings - Even if Authority accepted possibility that for period after employment ended applicant under disability, nothing to indicate disability continued until at least October 2000 (six years before date of filing) - Tribunal had no ability to waive provisions of Limitation Act - Personal grievance and claim for redundancy compensation filed too late - Limitation Act prevented both from proceeding - Matter dealt with as member of Tribunal
Result: Application dismissed ; No order for costs
Hunter v National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd
14 May 2007, Perkins, J, WC 1A/07, (1 pages)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application by defendant to vary injunction restraining it from ceasing to pay plaintiff sick leave (see: WC 1/07, 26 January 2007) – Defendant had since terminated plaintiff’s employment – Defendant applied to vary order on basis that plaintiff no longer in it’s employment – Plaintiff raised jurisdictional issues arising from fact that Authority was presently dealing with matter and possible issues caused by recent change to legal position regarding injunctive relief – HELD – Effectively an application to discharge – No basis for continuation of order because plaintiff’s employment had been terminated – Discharge of order would not affect parties’ rights in Authority proceedings – Order discharged – Application granted – COSTS – Defendant sought $1,000 costs – Application merely a tidying of matters for procedural purposes – Costs to lie where they fall
Result: Application granted; Orders accordingly ; Costs to lie where they fall
McRae v The $2 Shop Ltd
30 Apr 2007, L Robinson, AA 132/07, (3 pages)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Applicant sought compliance with record of settlement – Respondent failed to file statement in reply - Granted leave to defend application – Respondent submitted application should be refused as applicant acted in dishonest and fraudulent manner – Applicant advised by Authority not required to address allegations as had right to silence and privilege against self incrimination – Respondent submitted warning problematic as wished to raise allegations of criminal conduct as relevant to enforceability of record of settlement - Claimed Authority's equity and good conscience jurisdiction relevant to exercise of discretion to grant compliance orders – Authority declined to pursue enquiries relating to alleged criminal matters – Parties given time to make submissions as to relevance, having regard to prohibitive terms of s149(3) Employment Relations Act 2000
Result: Orders accordingly ; No order for costs
Sajad v Ticketek New Zealand Ltd
14 Sep 2007, L Robinson, AA 198B/07, (2 pages)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Authority previously determined costs - When received copy of determination, applicant advised Authority he had not received respondent's submission on costs - Respondent unable to verify service - Costs determination obtained irregularly - Costs investigation reopened - Original determination recalled and replaced with present one - CONSENT ORDER - Parties reached agreement on costs - Terms of settlement to be orders of Authority - Applicant to pay $750 costs to respondent by instalments
Result: Orders accordingly ; No order for costs
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
