| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 143/07 |
| Hearing date | 21 Feb 2007 |
| Determination date | 10 May 2007 |
| Member | M Urlich |
| Representation | F Sabbineni & B Samuels ; C Hogg |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Soen v Cosmos Hantec Investment (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Applicant raised grievance - Respondent claimed when it replied to applicant's discovery request it inadvertently disclosed privileged document - Sought order from Authority preventing applicant using or referring to document - Applicant argued document not privileged, unclear whether privilege attached to whole document, and whether copied document could attract privilege - Document recorded minutes of meeting where respondent's executives discussed how to handle applicant's employment issues in light of legal advice received - Document in entirety attracted solicitor/client privilege - Disclosure of document inadvertent - Not in interests of justice to allow applicant to use document - Authority would not be misled if document not provided - Applicant could not use or refer to document |
| Result | Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s160(1);Privacy Act 1993 Principle 6 |
| Cases Cited | Stayinfront Inc v Tobin, 3 November 2006, US District Court, New Jersey, 05-Civ.-4563;Wheeler v Le Marchant 918810 17 Ch D 675 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 143_07.pdf [pdf 22 KB] |