Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
Association of University Staff Inc v Vice-Chancellor of the University of Auckland
12 Jul 2007, D King, AA 209/07, (8 pages)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application for partial strike out - Applicant alleged respondent repeated conduct previously held to be illegal by Employment Court ("EC") - Respondent claimed issues already determined and sought to strike out first and third causes of action, and certain paragraphs in statement of problem, on basis of res judicata and estoppel arguments - Alternatively claimed applicant failed to give sufficient particulars of alleged breaches of law - First and third causes of action seemed in essence identical - Authority not convinced issue in present proceedings identical to issue determined in EC case - While similarities in behaviour, circumstances different - Case law/texts stating doctrine of estoppel product of adversary litigation system, and may not be equally relevant to work of inquisitive tribunals, borne in mind - Authority's position as informal forum taken into consideration - Declined to strike out third cause of action and paragraphs, as they contained background information - Authority understood breach relied on in first cause to be breach of s4 and s32 Employment Relations Act 2000 - First cause appeared superfluous - If so, applicant should remove it - If not, applicant should amend first cause of action
Result: Application dismissed ; Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved
The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Tawhiwhirangi
10 May 2007, Shaw, J, WC 14/07, (1 pages)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application by plaintiff for non-publication order in relation to names and identities of non party prisoners mentioned in evidence in current proceedings and determination of Authority - Prisoner was victim of alleged assaults by defendant - HELD - Order appropriate to preserve privacy - Order made prohibiting names or identifying details of any prisoner named in documents or mentioned in evidence in current proceedings or Authority determination - In particular, order directed at prisoner who was subject of employment investigation concerning the defendant - Application granted - Corrections Officer
Result: Application granted (Non-publication order) ; Orders accordingly ; No order for
costs
Crimmins v McVicar Timber Group Ltd
21 Dec 2006, J Crichton, CA 180/06, (6 pages)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Quantum of remedies - Authority had reserved leave on calculation of redundancy compensation if parties could not agree on sum - Parties unable to resolve issue - Employment agreement recorded how compensation to be calculated - No sense Authority would be making determination about matter related to bargaining or fixing new terms and conditions of employment - Equity and good conscience jurisdiction - Not fair and equitable for applicant to be denied compensation because parties unable to agree quantum - Respondent's submission applicant should be awarded less or no compensation as offered alternative employment not taken into account as Authority had already considered offer not made in good faith - Employment agreement referred to "calculation" of redundancy compensation that "will be paid" - Authority did not believe could be interpreted to mean zero compensation - Respondent also submitted Authority should consider evidence other than statistics expressly referred to in employment agreement - Mistake as to title of statistics no more than misdescription and both parties knew what referred to - Consideration of statistics mandatory - Inappropriate to consider other material - Absence of any guidelines discouraged Authority from innovation - Quantum based on most common situation revealed by statistics - Influenced by applicant's extraordinary length of service and level of weekly wage - No evidence respondent unable to meet payment - Sawmill manager
Result: Quantum determined ; Redundancy compensation ($23,566.40) ; Interest (7%) ; Costs reserved
Field v AB Equipment Ltd
15 Dec 2006, P R Stapp, WA 178/06, (3 pages)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Quantum of remedies - Authority had reserved leave on calculation of lost benefit if parties could not agree on sum - Parties unable to resolve issue - Applicant sought respondent's contribution to superannuation scheme - Whether applicant could reasonably have expected to obtain benefit if personal grievance had not arisen - Payment of employer's contribution discretionary - Respondent's policy recommended payment to members who belonged to scheme for more than five years - Applicant dismissed after two years eight months - No evidence intended to leave employment or retire - More than likely applicant would have worked for some time if not dismissed - No reason to disregard submission respondent did not pay out other than under terms of scheme - Even if applicant remained for required time would only have prospect of qualifying and amount claimed would be speculative - Authority declined to award applicant employer contribution - COSTS - Successful personal grievance - Length of investigation meeting not specified - Applicant sought contribution of $6,000 to total costs of $9,000, including $2,000 for second mediation directed by Authority - Claim reasonable except for inclusion of mediation costs - No good reason to depart from usual practice not to award costs for mediation
Result: Orders accordingly ; Costs in favour of applicant ($4,000) ; Disbursements ($430) ; ($70)(Filing fee)
Weston v Fraser
27 Apr 2007, Shaw, J, WC 2A/07, (1 pages)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application by defendant to strike out plaintiff's challenge - Plaintiff had applied for stay of proceedings to prevent execution of charging order - Employment Court held (WC 24/06) Authority proceedings would be stayed only if plaintiff paid Authority's costs award to defendant, and balance of Authority's judgment sum was paid into Court - Court indicated failure to comply may result in challenge being struck out - Payments not made - Court held (WC 2/07) application for stay had lapsed due to failure to met conditions - Plaintiff suggested he could lodge surety instead of money and could tender evidence to Court as to validity of surety - HELD - Strike out order generally only made where pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action; were likely to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay; or otherwise an abuse of the Court - Matters giving rise to strike out application concerned conduct of plaintiff rather than the pleadings - Formal legal grounds for strike out not met - However, challenge would not progress unless and until judgment sum, including costs order, was paid - Court Registrar should not have to be responsible for ensuring surety adequate - Court left open option that surety could be sufficient if plaintiff consented - Application dismissed
Result: Application dismissed ; Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
