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
Ronald Thomas Shea v STLand Contracting Limited (in liquidation) [2026] NZERA 420 - dismissed by phone without a process

Ronald Thomas Shea was told by phone that there was no more work for him after his trucking and contracting hours fell sharply. STLand Contracting Limited had genuine financial pressure and could have commenced a workplace change process, but it did nothing. The ERA found a clear dismissal without consultation, found that Mr Shea had also been bullied in an unsafe workplace, and ordered $45,600 in notice pay, lost wages, compensation and costs...

Ilalio Solomona v Auckland Council [2026] NZERA 418 - conflict of interest dismissal unjustified

Auckland Council summarily dismissed a fitness instructor over an undeclared personal-training business and three social-media videos filmed at a Council leisure centre. The ERA held that the Council relied on policies which did not in substance fit the alleged conflict, failed to raise the contractual obligations it might have relied on, and pursued discipline over matters known long beforehand without first discussing them in good faith. The dismissal was unjustified. Remedies were reduced by 10 percent for the employee's use of customers and the workplace to promote his own business...

Neil Hall v Consultex Company Limited [2026] NZERA 410 - genuine redundancy but unjustified process

Neil Hall's Northland asbestos-surveyor and mould-testing role was genuinely disestablished for commercial reasons, but Consultex Company Limited failed to consult in good faith. It did not meaningfully answer Mr Hall's request for financial information, failed to engage with his redeployment question, and sent a response that strongly suggested the decision had already been made before consultation closed. The ERA found unjustified dismissal and ordered $8,000 compensation, with no reduction for contribution...

Aaron Potter v Talley's Limited [2026] NZERA 412 - flawed HSR election disciplinary process and unjustified dismissal

Aaron Potter was summarily dismissed by Talley's Limited after a complaint connected with an election for a health and safety representative. The ERA found Talley's had not properly investigated the complaint, had not clearly set out the allegations or supporting information, had not given Mr Potter a fair opportunity to respond, and could not reasonably conclude that he had bullied, intimidated, or attempted to influence the vote. Mr Potter was awarded $20,000 compensation and $7,226.25 gross lost remuneration, no contribution was found...

Sophie Kennett v Polygon GY Developments Limited [2026] NZERA 405 - engineered resignation, redundancy and Holidays Act entitlements

Sophie Kennett was required to resign before holiday leave and then re-employed after the break. The ERA held that Polygon had manufactured the termination to minimise Holidays Act liabilities, meaning her employment was continuous. It also found a later redundancy dismissal unjustified because the business sale remained uncertain, redeployment was not properly considered, relevant information was withheld, and no contractual notice was provided. The Authority ordered compensation, lost wages, notice pay, Holidays Act entitlements, wage arrears, interest and a penalty...

Rakai Tawhiwhirangi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2026] NZERA 402 - unjustified dismissal after self-defence acquittal

The Department of Corrections dismissed Principal Corrections Officer Rakai Tawhiwhirangi after he used force on a prisoner and did not report the incident. Although he had been acquitted of assault on the basis of self-defence, Corrections revisited the same factual questions and reached the opposite conclusions. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified because Corrections blurred the criminal and employment issues, did not properly identify and assess the remaining policy breaches, allowed a conflicted decision maker to continue, and relied on conduct that was not put as an allegation. Reinstatement was declined, but the Authority ordered $17,000 compensation and $19,882.50 lost wages after a 15 percent contribution reduction...

Browse topics