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
Rachel Hankins v Huhtamaki Henderson Limited [2026] NZERA 379 - valid fixed term but unjustified early termination

Rachel Hankins was engaged as an accountant on a fixed term maternity-cover agreement due to end on 15 August 2025. The ERA found the fixed term complied with section 66 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, but Huhtamaki Henderson Limited prematurely ended the employment relationship by requiring the return of company property, cutting off IT access, and treating her engagement as concluded before the agreed end date. The Authority found unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage, ordering $11,500 compensation and four weeks' salary.

ZZP v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2026] NZERA 367 - medical incapacity dismissal unjustified because final concerns were not put to the employee

ZZP was dismissed by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue on medical grounds after a lengthy absence and a failed return-to-work attempt. The ERA accepted that IRD had given ZZP a reasonable opportunity to recover and had been entitled to treat the medical evidence cautiously. However, the dismissal was unjustified because the decision maker relied on several concerns in the final decision letter that had not been put to ZZP for comment. Reinstatement and lost wages were declined, but compensation was assessed at $25,000 and reduced by 25 percent for contribution, resulting in $18,750 payable.

Jeanette Go v Point Limited [2026] NZERA 369 - genuine redundancy but flawed consultation and undisclosed selection criteria

Jeanette Go was made redundant from her estimator role at Point Limited after a downturn in estimation work. Point accepted its redundancy process was flawed because it did not disclose the selection criteria and did not interview the other estimators. The ERA accepted there was a genuine business reason and that the outcome was unlikely to have changed, but found Ms Go was unjustifiably dismissed and disadvantaged by the flawed process. Point was ordered to pay $18,000 compensation and $5,769.23 gross lost wages. Penalties were declined and costs were reserved.

Selwyn McDonald v Traffica Roading Services Limited [2026] NZERA 360 - on-the-spot dismissal after heated worksite exchange

Selwyn McDonald was summarily dismissed on site by Traffica Roading Services Limited after a heated exchange with director Bashir Ahmed. The ERA accepted Traffica's account that Mr McDonald made serious disrespectful comments with racial connotations, but still found the dismissal unjustified because he was dismissed on the spot without a fair opportunity to respond. Remedies were reduced by 40 percent for contribution. Traffica was ordered to pay $9,000 compensation and $3,800 gross lost wages.

Nata Venceslau Dos Santos v Nresh Group Limited [2026] NZERA 363 - hostile workplace, visa pressure, unjustified dismissal, wage arrears and penalties

Nata Venceslau Dos Santos, a painter's assistant employed by Nresh Group Limited, succeeded in personal grievance claims for unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal. The ERA found Nresh created a hostile and insecure work environment, failed to follow a fair dismissal process, and had no substantive justification for dismissal. Nresh was ordered to pay $25,000 compensation, $1,440 gross lost wages, $2,698.15 gross wage arrears, public holiday entitlements for Good Friday and ANZAC Day 2024, interest, and penalties split between Mr Dos Santos and the Crown.

Auto John Huntley-Byrne v Dallison 2021 Limited [2026] NZERA 354 - unjustified café dismissal by text message

Auto John Huntley-Byrne was dismissed from his café job at Hind Quarters after close-up tasks were left incomplete. The ERA found Dallison 2021 Limited had some basis to be concerned, but it dismissed him by text message without a proper disciplinary meeting, without a real opportunity to respond, and without the procedural protections required by the employment agreement and handbook. Dallison was ordered to pay $7,469.28 gross lost wages and $13,500 compensation after a 10 percent contribution reduction, plus a $500 penalty to the Crown for incomplete wage and time records.

Browse topics