| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 188/05 |
| Determination date | 05 December 2005 |
| Member | D Asher |
| Representation | G Davenport ; P Gunn |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Witcombe v Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application by respondent for removal of proceedings to Employment Court - Respondent alleged problem turned substantially on contents and effect of various communications made to Parliamentary select committee - Alleged ability of Authority to have regard to such communications by way of personal grievance raised important questions of law regarding Article IX of Bill of Rights 1689 which provided that proceedings in Parliament were protected from being impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament - Bearing in mind Prebble v Television New Zealand (cited below) and having close regard to pleadings, this was not an instance in which important question of law likely to arise in matter other than incidentally - Applicant's case largely if not entirely founded on actions of former employer, which occurred outside of any Parliamentary process - Applicant could not challenge what was said or done within walls of Parliament in performance of legislative functions and protection of its established privileges but could challenge actions of employer whose task it was to service that body - Statements made to select committee by respondent could not be held against it - Important question of law likely to arise but only incidentally - Other preliminary matters - Discovery sought by applicant in respect of draft report produced by defendant in course of investigation process and email generated by one of respondent's staff around same time - Respondent alleged legal privilege applied to report - Parties to make further submissions in respect of report - Email not reasonably able to be produced as access would cost several thousand dollars - Respondent would embark on forensic recovery exercise if applicant prepared to underwrite costs |
| Result | Application dismissed ; Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | Bill of Rights 1689 Article IX |
| Cases Cited | Auckland District Health Board v X [2005] 1 ERNZ 551;Buchanan v Jennings [2004] UKPC 36;List v Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives unreported, G Wood, 22 September 2003, WA 136/03;Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593;Prebble v Television New Zealand [1994] 3 NZLR 1 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 188_05.pdf [pdf 37 KB] |