| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2016] NZERA Christchurch 65 |
| Determination date | 17 May 2016 |
| Member | Helen Doyle |
| Representation | J Horan ; G Martin |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Brown & Walker and Padmore v The Partners of the Partnership of International Football Academy of New Zealand being Piri Reiri, Phil Walker, Graham McMann |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Admissibility of evidence – Whether advocate permitted to represent applicants and give evidence – Whether Authority should adjourn investigation meeting |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND –;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Email communications by applicant’s representative with applicant and respondents not protected by legal professional privilege and may contain relevant information. Emails admissible. Law gives Authority discretion to decide whether advocate also permitted to appear as witness. Unclear whether advocate wished to give evidence. Evidence to be heard at start of investigation meeting if necessary. Busyness of advocate not strong ground to grant adjournment. No adjournment. |
| Result | Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s6(2);ERA s6(3);ERA s160(2);ERA s236;ECA 59;Evidence Act 2006 s51 |
| Cases Cited | James & Co Ltd v Hughes [1995] 2 ERNZ 432 (EmpC);McDonald v Mason Services Ltd [1998] 2 ERNZ 346 (EmpC) |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2016_NZERA_Christchurch_65.pdf [pdf 106 KB] |