[2019] NZEmpC 189 McCook v Chief Executive of the Inland Revenue Department [pdf, 217 KB]
...evidence placed before the Court, some information relating to the employment of the plaintiffs is held by Madison and not IR. The Court is told that Madison has been directly involved in arranging for the plaintiffs to work at IR. On the evidence filed, it is a party having a role in the employment of the plaintiffs. [20] In all these circumstances I am satisfied that, as a matter of jurisdiction, the requirements of HCR 4.56(1)(b)(ii) are made out; Madison’s participation in t...