Aztec Packaging Ltd v Malevris - [2012] NZHC 243

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2011-404-5803 [2012] NZHC 243

UNDER Part 13 of the High Court Rules

IN THE MATTER OF an application for summary Judgment

BETWEEN AZTEC PACKAGING LIMITED Plaintiff

ANDVANESSA JEAN MALEVRIS Defendant

Hearing: 12 December 2011

Appearances: Danny Wu for Plaintiff
No appearance for Defendant

Judgment: 23 February 2012

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE R M BELL

This judgment was delivered by me on
23 February 2012 at 11:00am
pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

……………………………………………..
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
David Rooke, P O Box 64 342 Botany Town Centre, Auckland 2142, for plaintiff
Email: david@davidrookelaw.co.nz

AZTEC PACKAGING LIMITED V MALEVRIS HC AK CIV-2011-404-5803 [23 February 2012]

[1] This application for summary judgment was called before me on

12 December 2011. I adjourned the matter to 16 February 2012, because I had doubts whether this court has jurisdiction to hear the causes of action in the plaintiff’s statement of claim. The defendant had been served on 6 December 2011. Accordingly, she had not received the 15 working days notice required. She has not taken any steps in the meantime.

[2] The plaintiff filed a memorandum for the hearing on 16 February 2012. The memorandum addressed the jurisdiction question. I reserved my decision.

[3] The plaintiff’s statement of claim says that the defendant worked for the plaintiff as senior office administrator from 30 January 2007 until 22 March 2011, the date of acceptance of her resignation. As senior office administrator, she was responsible for accounts payable and receivable, wages and salaries, debt collection, overseas payments, PAYE, holiday and sickness records, and a number of other accounting and office duties.

[4] The plaintiff discovered that the defendant had made unauthorised payments to herself during the course of her employment. These totalled $24,883.31. The first cause of action in the statement of claim is for money had and received. The second cause of action is for breach of fiduciary duty. If this court has jurisdiction, the plaintiff has shown that the defendant does not have a defence to the allegations in the first and second causes of action.

[5] The jurisdiction question is whether the claims by the plaintiff are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority under the Employment Relations Act 2000. The Employment Relations Authority was established under s
156 of the Employment Relations Act. Section 157 provides the role of the

Authority:

157 Role of Authority

(1) The Authority is an investigative body that has the role of resolving employment relationship problems by establishing the facts and making a determination according to the substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities.

(2) The Authority must, in carrying out its role,—

(a) comply with the principles of natural justice; and

(b) aim to promote good faith behaviour; and

(c) support successful employment relationships; and

(d) generally further the object of this Act.

(3) The Authority must act as it thinks fit in equity and good conscience, but may not…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Aztec Packaging Ltd v Malevris

Details

AGLC: Aztec Packaging Ltd v Malevris [2012] NZHC 243
Case: [2012] NZHC 243
Decision Date: 23 February 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Aztec Packaging Ltd initiated proceedings against Vanessa Jean Malevris, seeking summary judgment for money had and received and for breach of fiduciary duty. Malevris, a former senior office administrator for Aztec, was alleged to have made unauthorised payments to herself totaling $24,883.31 during her employment. The court had to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear the case or whether the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) under the Employment Relations Act 2000.

The primary legal issue was whether the plaintiff's claims were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the ERA. The court examined the nature of the plaintiff's claims and whether they constituted employment relationship problems as defined under the Act. The court noted that the claims involved disputes about the interpretation, operation, and breach of an employment agreement, which fall within the ERA's exclusive jurisdiction. The court also considered whether the plaintiff could circumvent the exclusive jurisdiction by framing the claims differently. The court concluded that the nature of the underlying problem, which was an employment relationship issue, determined the jurisdiction, not the specific formulation of the causes of action.

The court found that the plaintiff's claims were indeed employment relationship problems and thus within the ERA's exclusive jurisdiction. The court dismissed the application for summary judgment and struck out the proceeding, holding that the High Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case. The court reasoned that allowing the case to proceed in the High Court would create the risk of inconsistent decisions between the court and the ERA, which would undermine the statutory scheme designed to handle employment relationship issues in a consistent manner. The court further noted that the plaintiff's attempt to plead around the exclusive jurisdiction by framing the claims differently was not permissible. The court emphasized that the underlying problem between the parties, which related to the defendant's employment, determined the jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the application for summary judgment and struck out the proceeding, finding that the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the ERA.

Orders