| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2017] NZERA Auckland 127 |
| Determination date | 28 April 2017 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | S Mitchell ; C Bowdler, G Bennett |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Nair v TN Communications Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Whether employment advocate firm who previously represented applicant during disciplinary meetings should be permitted to represent respondent |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Firm not bound by Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 or any professional code of conduct. Firm obtained confidential information from applicant when representing him during disciplinary meetings with respondent. Firm’s website assures it will act in professional and ethical manner. Communication between firm and client was privileged akin to that between and lawyer and client. Reasonable perception that applicant may be disadvantaged if respondent represented by firm. Natural justice requires appearance of justice. To allow firm to represent respondent would breach natural justice. Firm not permitted to represent respondent. |
| Result | Orders made ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s157 ; ERA s157(2) ; ERA s157(3) ; ERA s160(f) |
| Cases Cited | Black v Taylor [1993] 3 NZLR 403 (CA);Owen v McAlpine Industries Ltd [1999] 1 ERNZ 870 (EmpC);Stuart v Downer New Zealand Ltd [2012] NZERA Christchurch 160 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | 2017_NZERA_Auckland_127.pdf [pdf 163 KB] |