| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2017] NZERA Auckland 378 |
| Determination date | 07 December 2017 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | V Kirichuk ; H Kynaston, N Ridder |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Kirichuk v Commissioner of Police |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Whether it was improper for Buddle Findlay to act for the Commissioner and/or Ms Ridder |
| Abstract | AUTHORITY FOUND – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Applicant did not have a basis for opposing the involvement of Counsel of either Ms Ridder or Buddle Findlay. Ms Ridder did not have any relevant information that the Police behaved properly in its dealings with applicant. Law firms should not be precluded from fulfilling obligations to one client because they might potentially have obligations to another. No conclusive evidence that Buddle Findlay have any tangential connection to relevant parties. Applications for orders preventing the involvement of Ms Ridder and/or Buddle Findlay dismissed. |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | 2017_NZERA_Auckland_378.pdf [pdf 94 KB] |