Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch
Reference No [2012] NZERA Christchurch 235
Determination date 29 October 2012
Member H Doyle
Representation B Nevell ; J Farrow
Location Christchurch
Parties Gray v Murrays Veterinary Clinic Ltd
Summary PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Admissibility of evidence – Authority noted another Authority member to investigate parties’ substantive issues – Found any concerns about probative or prejudicial value of particular evidence should be made by Authority member determining substantive issues – Application dismissed
Abstract Applicant claimed evidence of another employee of respondent (“M”) relevant to matter. Applicant denied M’s evidence unfairly prejudicial and claimed probative value of M’s evidence should be dealt with by Authority when matter investigated. Authority had previously found M had not raised separate personal grievance in time. Applicant claimed Authority did not previously determine M’s credibility. Respondent claimed that M’s evidence inadmissible. Respondent claimed M’s evidence did not have tendency to prove or disprove applicant’s claims and inappropriate to allow M’s evidence to be heard again in another proceeding. Respondent claimed Authority should be guided by relevant sections of Evidence Act 2006.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Another Authority member to investigate parties’ substantive issues. Any concerns about probative or prejudicial value of M’s evidence should be made by Authority member determining substantive issues. Application dismissed.
Result Application dismissed ; Costs reserved
Main Category Practice & Procedure
Statutes ERA s160(2);Evidence Act 2006 s7;Evidence Act 2006 s8
Cases Cited Gray v Murrays Veterinary Clinic Ltd [2012] NZERA Christchurch 192;Miles v Murrays Veterinary Clinic Ltd unreported, J Crichton, 1 October 2009, CA164/09
Number of Pages 3
PDF File Link: 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_235.pdf [pdf 145 KB]