Tetrad Holdings Limited v Leo Mataruka

Key Issues

• {"issue_text":"Whether the arbitrator erred in concluding that respondent had not resigned despite absence of written resignation","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Management meeting where resignation discussed, no written resignation provided"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether absence of meeting minutes meant respondent had not resigned despite oral evidence from managers","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Managers gave oral evidence of resignation, no documentary evidence"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether arbitrator erred in quantifying damages without giving employer opportunity to make representations under section 89(2)","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Damages quantified by arbitrator, appellant claims no opportunity for representations"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether arbitrator properly quantified damages without calling for evidence from parties","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"24-month damages awarded, no evidence led on quantification"}

Background