Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No AA 414/05
Hearing date 13 Oct 2005
Determination date 13 October 2005
Member M Urlich
Representation P Swarbrick ; E Butcher
Location Auckland
Parties Houston v Oldco PTI Ltd
Summary PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application for blanket suppression order - Respondent claimed evidence commercially sensitive, or so entwined with commercially sensitive evidence unable to be separated - Blanket suppression orders issued by High Court in related litigation still applied - Applicant opposed suppression - Respondent alleged disclosure of any of material for which suppression order sought likely to rock confidence of respondent's customers or suppliers, whose goodwill was respondent's major asset - Fact principal shareholder in receivership in public domain - Applicant's relationship to shareholder in public domain - Ending of parties relationship and connection to receivership of principal shareholder in public domain - Issues historical and respondent continued to trade - Authority not satisfied Anderson (cited below) test for suppression met - Could seek suppression of evidence during course of investigation - Respondent's counsel sought adjournment on grounds did not have instructions to proceed on that basis and advised challenge to refusal to grant suppression order would be sought - Adjournment granted - Determination only distributed to parties until outcome of challenge known - Authority's file not to be released without order of Authority
Result Application dismissed (Suppression order) ; Investigation adjourned ; No order for costs
Statutes ERA s160(1)(e);ERA Second Schedule cl10
Cases Cited Anderson v The Employment Tribunal and Aotearoa Maori Radio Trust [1992] 1 ERNZ 500;Davis v Bank of New Zealand;Houston & ors v ANZ National Bank Ltd, High Court Auckland, 17 December 2004, GV 2004-404-6932
Number of Pages 2
PDF File Link: aa 414_05.pdf [pdf 11 KB]