| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Auckland 307 |
| Determination date | 19 July 2013 |
| Member | T G Tetitaha |
| Representation | H White ; S J Turner, S J Clark |
| Parties | Flynn v Fonterra Brands (New Zealand) Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Admissibility of evidence - Respondent sought to exclude one witness statement and certain paragraphs of two other witness statements |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: First statement not substantially helpful in determining facts regarding workplace. Increase in costs and time likely if evidence admitted. Second witness involved in events in issue and statement relevant for determination. Merits and equities of case warrant admittance. Third witness experienced at managing hazards in workplace however one paragraph hearsay. First witness statement inadmissible. Second and third witness statements admissible bar one paragraph in third witness statement. Application partially granted. |
| Result | Application partially granted ; Orders made ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s157 - ERA s160(2) - Evidence Act 2006 - Evidence Act 2006 s18 - Evidence Act 2006 s25 - Evidence Act 2006 s25(1) |
| Cases Cited | Burns v Chief Executive, Legal Services Agency unreported, A Dumbleton, 27 Feb 2004, WA22/04 ERA Wellington WA 22/04, 27 February 2004;Maritime Union of New Zealand Inc v TLNZ Ltd [2007] ERNZ 593;Vollmer v The Wood Life Care (2007) Ltd [2012] NZERA Christchurch 257 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Auckland_307.pdf [pdf 94 KB] |