| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2014] NZERA Auckland 431 |
| Determination date | 20 October 2014 |
| Member | V Campbell |
| Representation | P McKendrick ; S McAnally |
| Parties | Puru v Aronui Technical Training Council |
| Summary | COUNTERCLAIM - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Inadmissibility of evidence - Applicant sent without prejudice" letter to respondent - Whether respondent's "without prejudice" reply admissible - Whether waiver to allow production of reply for purpose of injunction application also general waiver to allow production of reply in any other proceedings - Chief executive officer" |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -COUNTERCLAIM - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Totality of communications between parties demonstrated litigation clearly contemplated. Respondent waived privilege only for particular and limited purpose of threatened injunction proceedings. Contemplated injunction never eventuated. Reply could not be relied on by applicant. Evidence inadmissible. |
| Result | Application granted; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s160 |
| Cases Cited | Bayliss Sharr & Hansen v McDonald [2006] ERNZ 1058;B v Auckland District Law Society [2004] 1 NZLR 326;;Jackson v Enterprise Motor Group (North Shore) Ltd [2004] 2 ERNZ 424;Morgan v Whanganui College Board of Trustees [2013] ERNZ 285 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |