| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 253/07 |
| Hearing date | 16 Aug 2007 |
| Determination date | 20 August 2007 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | A Fitzgibbon ; J Roberts |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Perez v Focus 2000 Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Respondent objected to parts of brief of evidence filed by applicant’s witness - At material times witness acting as advocate for applicant - Respondent alleged brief referred to substance of without prejudice discussion between witness and its advocate - Applicant submitted evidence not “without prejudice” as no dispute at time - From parties’ evidence clear both intended discussion to be kept in confidence - Entered into against background of ongoing disciplinary investigation and amounted to attempt to resolve associated problem arising in the employment relationship - Implicit in discussions that purpose was to resolve potential litigation - Background sufficient to amount to dispute for purposes of without prejudice rule in employment context - Alternatively, applicant argued interests of justice required without prejudice rules to be overridden - In particular, claimed required evidence to show role of respondent’s advocate in dismissal - Other evidence available on issue and doubtful Authority would be deceived or misled by exclusion of disputed statements - Fairness of entering into discussion not relevant to whether it ought to be detailed in evidence - No exception to without prejudice rules applied - Applicant also claimed respondent waived privilege by supplying document that referred to fact conversation took place - Message did not disclose significant part of privileged information and did not have effect of waiving any privilege attached to content of discussion - Evidence relating to discussion to be removed from witness’ brief and related paragraph in respondent’s evidence also to be removed -Applicant did not dispute that an additional sentence should also be removed from brief - Orders accordingly |
| Result | Application granted ; Orders accordingly ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Cases Cited | Bayliss Sharr & Hansen v McDonald unreported, Couch J, 7 December 2006, CC 12/06;Cedenco Foods Limited v State Insurance Limited (1996) 10 PRNZ 142, 143;Jackson v Enterprise Motors (North Shore) Limited [2004] 2 ERNZ 424 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 253_07.pdf [pdf 27 KB] |