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.

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.

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.