| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2017] NZERA Auckland 148 |
| Determination date | 18 May 2017 |
| Member | R Larmer |
| Representation | A Halse ; S Grice ; A Twaddle (Ms X) |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | T v K |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Issue over allegedly inaccurate information in previous determination about non-party and non-witness (Ms X) - Ms X sought non-publication order for her name, names of parties, name and location of workplace and names of witnesses |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND -;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Ms X alleged applicant provided inaccurate information about her which was accepted as uncontested evidence in previous determinations. Authority satisfied on balance of probabilities that information about Ms X was inaccurate. Reopening investigation not appropriate because new information did not change substantive findings. No jurisdiction to redraft substantive determination. Authority has inherent jurisdiction to correct genuine error under ‘slip rule’. Serious and significant likelihood that Ms X will be identified from other information in substantive determination and will be linked to inaccurate adverse statements about her. Authority has power under equity and good conscience to mitigate harm to Ms X. No public interest in identifying Ms X. Non-publication application granted. |
| Result | Application granted ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA Second Schedule cl10(1) |
| Cases Cited | Dallinger v Attorney-General ERA Wellington WA162/03, 17 November 2003;Fowler v Waiau College Board of Trustees EmpC Christchurch CEC35/93, 13 July 1993;GWD Russells (Gore) Ltd v Muir [1993] 2 ERNZ 332 (EmpC);H v A Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 92, [2014] ERNZ 38;Y v D [2004] 1 ERNZ 1 (EmpC);Z v Y Ltd and A [1993] 2 ERNZ 469 (EmpC) |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2017_NZERA_Auckland_148.pdf [pdf 245 KB] |