ClickCease

GXQ v NMK [2025] NZERA 772 - name suppression and non-publication order refused; open justice prevailed

Interlocutory decision. The employee (NMK) sought permanent name suppression and an interim non-publication order in an ongoing personal grievance. The Authority applied the high threshold for permanent suppression and held the evidence did not show exceptional hardship or a sufficiently real...


GXQ v NMK [2025] NZERA 772

This is an interlocutory Employment Relations Authority (ERA) decision about name suppression and non-publication. The underlying personal grievance continues. The question here was whether the applicant had shown a sufficiently high threshold to suppress identities. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

At a glance

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 772
  • Registry: Wellington
  • Authority member: John Stokes
  • Investigation: on the papers
  • Determination date: 20 November 2025
  • Application: permanent name suppression and interim non-publication
  • Outcome: declined

Background

The case caption uses initials (GXQ and NMK). The underlying matter is a personal grievance. Before the substantive issues were determined, NMK applied for permanent suppression of names and for a non-publication order.

The Authority recorded that permanent suppression is exceptional. The default position is open justice: decisions are public and names are published unless there is a compelling reason not to.

The legal test applied

The Authority applied the standard approach used in courts and in the ERA: suppression is discretionary, but the threshold for permanent orders is high. General embarrassment, reputational harm, or career impact is usually not enough. The applicant must show a real risk of exceptional hardship or a sufficiently serious safety concern, supported by evidence.

Why suppression was refused

The Authority held NMK's evidence did not establish exceptional hardship if names were published. The concerns raised were largely general consequences that commonly arise from litigation (stress, embarrassment, reputational impact).

The Authority also considered whether there was a genuine and sufficiently serious safety risk, and whether publication would prejudice the hearing. On the evidence, the Authority was not satisfied suppression was necessary. The public interest in open justice and the proper transparency of the Authority's work weighed against suppression.

Outcome

The application for permanent name suppression and an interim non-publication order was dismissed. The underlying personal grievance continues to be case managed and determined in the usual way.

Practical takeaways

  • Suppression is exceptional: permanent name suppression requires strong evidence of exceptional hardship or serious safety risk.
  • General reputational harm is not enough: stress or embarrassment from litigation is usually insufficient.
  • Open justice is the default: transparency is a strong factor, particularly where decisions concern employment rights and public process.
  • Interlocutory decisions matter: suppression applications can be decided before the merits and can shape publication outcomes from the outset.
If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.

Read the full ERA determination (embedded)

If the embedded PDF does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.

Mobile / tablet tip: Some browsers do not display embedded PDFs reliably. Use the Open button above.


Source: Employment Relations Authority determination hosted on determinations.era.govt.nz.

0800 WIN KIWI

Search
Search articles and guides.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
Philip Powell v OH and N Contracting Limited and Bradley Mooney [2026] NZERA 481 - genuine redundancy reason but no consultation, notice-pay breach and director recovery

Philip Powell was employed by OH and N Contracting Limited as a site foreman in a logging operation. The ERA accepted there was some genuine business basis for redundancy because the logging work was nearing completion, the company had not secured other work, and the need for workers was reducing. But the dismissal was still unjustified because OH and N did not follow any real good-faith consultation process before ending Mr Powell's employment. The employer also wrongly used annual holiday pay instead of paying notice wages, failed to provide wage and time records when requested, and was ordered to pay compensation, lost wages, unpaid wages, penalties, and to allow limited personal recovery against the director if the company could not pay...

Conner Powell v OH and N Contracting Limited and Bradley Mooney [2026] NZERA 480 - genuine redundancy reason but no consultation, notice-pay breach and director recovery

Conner Powell was employed by OH and N Contracting Limited as a forestry worker from November 2022 until his employment ended on redundancy grounds in January 2025. The ERA accepted there was some genuine business basis for redundancy because the logging work was nearing completion, the company had not secured other work, and the need for workers was reducing. But the dismissal was still unjustified because OH and N did not follow a good-faith restructuring process before ending Mr Powell's employment. The employer also wrongly used annual holiday pay instead of notice wages, failed to provide the employment agreement and wage and time records when requested, and was ordered to pay compensation, lost wages, unpaid wages and penalties...

Jia Jia v TBS Trading Limited and Helen Han [2026] NZERA 478 - no employment agreement, late wages and radio-silent dismissal

Jia Jia worked for TBS Trading Limited as a retail sales assistant for about two and a half months. She was not given a written employment agreement, her wages were not always paid on time, and her employment ended after the employer stopped offering her full-time work and then stopped offering her work at all. The ERA found unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage. It ordered two months' lost wages, $12,500 compensation, penalties for failing to provide an employment agreement and late wage payment, costs and the filing fee. Helen Han was not found personally liable for dismissal remedies, but the ERA granted leave for Ms Jia to recover the penalties from Ms Han personally if TBS could not pay them...

OAS v JIK Limited [2026] NZERA 474 - employee dismissed after seeking family violence leave

OAS was employed as a chef by JIK Limited. After a family violence incident involving his ex-partner, OAS told the employer he needed time away from work to keep his children safe, deal with urgent family matters, meet a victim support adviser and pursue protection-order steps. JIK treated his messages as a resignation or abandonment of employment and left him off the next roster. The ERA held that OAS had not resigned or abandoned his job. He was entitled to family violence leave and JIK's decision not to roster him again was a dismissal. The dismissal was unjustified because JIK failed to engage with the family violence situation and dismissed him for missing work when he was entitled to be away. The Authority awarded compensation and lost wages, reduced by 10 percent for contribution...

Duane April v Coatrite Fire Limited [2026] NZERA 466 - visa worker underpaid, racialised comments, unlawful deductions and unjustified dismissal

Duane April came to New Zealand on an accredited employer work visa to work for Coatrite Fire Limited as an industrial/intumescent spray painter. The ERA found he had been unjustifiably disadvantaged by underpayment at $35 rather than the agreed $38 per hour, unauthorised wage deductions, racialised comments, and an unjustified verbal warning. His later dismissal was also unjustified. The employer failed to provide sufficient information about the allegations, unfairly denied remote support from Mr April's father, relied on matters not properly investigated, and dismissed him after a meeting that had ended with an apparent understanding the employment relationship would continue. Coatrite was ordered to pay compensation, lost wages, arrears, interest and a $4,000 penalty, while most of its claimed set-off against Mr April was rejected...

Qi Sun v Keene Construction Limited [2026] NZERA 465 - builder dismissed by text after querying apprenticeship costs

Qi Sun was employed by Keene Construction Limited as an apprentice builder. After he queried an unpaid $300 apprenticeship-cost payment, the company director texted that there was not going to be a company anymore and told him not to bother coming into work. The ERA found it was reasonable for Mr Sun to understand that he had been dismissed. Keene Construction provided no evidence, filed no reply, did not attend the investigation meeting, and did not justify the dismissal. The Authority awarded lost wages, compensation, wage and holiday pay arrears, and costs...

Browse topics