| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 65/08 |
| Hearing date | 21 Feb 2008 |
| Determination date | 28 February 2008 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | B Murray ; J Haigh QC, K Beck |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Singh and Anor v W Ltd and Ors |
| Other Parties | Singh, X Ltd, Y Ltd, Z Ltd |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Respondents applied for stay or adjournment of applicants' employment relationship problems - Applicants alleged incident occurred day resigned - Incident subject of criminal proceedings - Matter would proceed to trial in High Court later in year or early the next year - Names of respondents subject to non-publication orders in District and High Courts - Authority made similar orders for present proceedings - Authority determined could not deal with compensation claims until after trial - In effect partial stay on claim for compensation - Whether Authority could continue to investigate aspects of claims not related to criminal charges - Respondents agreed to consent order requiring security deposit - Authority needed to hear evidence from people involved in criminal proceedings but requiring them to give evidence, and any findings as to credibility Authority made, could prejudice right to fair trial - Respondents argued any disadvantage to applicants from delay of less weight than risk of disadvantage and prejudice of right to fair trial - Applicants argued Authority had statutory obligation to conduct investigation - Also claimed criminal charges did not relate to subject of pay claims and already “partial stay” on compensation claim, also concerns about credibility findings too speculative - Authority persuaded incident’s factual background more likely than not part of evidence at trial - From information available credibility findings almost certainly required - Any credibility findings in Authority could create real risk of prejudice - Right to fair trial paramount consideration - Finely balanced case, provision of security deposit decisive factor - If applicants successful could receive amounts entitled to - Justice delayed but not denied - Could not say same if Authority investigation prejudiced respondents’ right to fair trial - Approach accorded with principles of natural justice and reasonable with regard to Authority’s investigative role - Postponement application granted, on conditions - Cooks |
| Result | Application granted ; Orders accordingly ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s160(1)(c);ERA s173;ERA s173(3);ERA s174;ERA Second Schedule cl10 |
| Cases Cited | A Ltd v B [1999] 1 ERNZ 613;Wackrow v Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited [2004] 1 ERNZ 350;X v Bay of Plenty District Health Board unreported, Travis J, 10 December 2007, AC 60A/07 |
| Number of Pages | 12 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |