Involvement in Employment Court proceedings is not necessarily something employers may want in the public domain.

While the principle of open justice states that the media and public have a right to report and be informed on the case and who the parties involved are, there is the option to apply for a ‘non-publication order’ which prohibits the publication of anything that could identify you as a party involved in the proceedings.

Under the Employment Relations Act 2000, the Court can make orders restricting publication if it considers it necessary to protect the interests of justice.

The Court generally weighs:

• The principle of open justice
• The potential harm from publication
• Whether the harm goes beyond ordinary reputational damage

Courts repeatedly emphasise that reputational damage alone is usually insufficient.

While non-publication orders are not common, a recent judgment in the Employment Court established that they can extend to people who are not a party involved in the case (for example, they are not the employee or the employer but are named in documents or proceedings).

In the case of Wilson Parking New Zealand Limited v Turner [2026] NZEmpC 13, the main parties were Wilson Parking and Turner. The affected non-party was a law firm. As part of the proceedings, Wilson Parking submitted evidence that detailed accusations against the law firm alleging it had breached its professional obligations under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (complaint).

The Court acknowledged that any professional conduct complaint must be dealt with confidentially and that allowing publication of the proceedings would prevent the complaint being dealt with in such a manner. The application for non-publication was primarily granted on this ground.

The law firm advanced their application for non-publication on the following further grounds:

• The allegations made against the law firm and its lawyer are novel and extremely serious (and are denied).
• Due to their nature, they would be likely to attract media attention in their own right.
• Media reporting of the case has been significant to date; and
• Significant reputational damage and professional and personal harm could occur if the allegations made are published.

These grounds were sufficient to displace the principle of open justice.

Both Wilson Parking and Turner, the parties to the proceedings, took a neutral position on the law firm’s application for a non-publication order.

The law firm successfully obtained a non-publication order as a non-party to the proceedings prohibiting publication of the name of the law firm, the names of any of the firm’s lawyers, and any other information or details that may identify the law firm or its lawyers.

What does this mean in practice?

This decision confirms that non-parties who may be affected by allegations or evidence filed in Employment Court proceedings can seek non-publication orders in appropriate circumstances.

However, employers should not assume that suppression will be readily available. The Employment Court places significant weight on the principle of open justice, and reputational harm alone will rarely justify restricting publication.

Anyone involved in litigation should:

• assume that Employment Court or Employment Relations Authority proceedings may become public and readily available;
• carefully consider whether third parties need to be identified in evidence;
• be mindful that allegations about other professionals or organisations could trigger separate legal issues; and
• obtain legal advice early if there are concerns about confidential processes or sensitive information being disclosed.

While this case shows that non-publication orders can extend to non-parties, the circumstances will remain relatively limited and fact-specific.

Need advice? The team at Copeland McAllister is happy to support you with any workplace law matter. Give us a call on 03 211 0153 or email admin@cmalaw.co.nz. 

Disclaimer: This update provides commentary on employment law, health and safety and immigration topics, it should not be used as a substitute for legal or professional advice for specific situations. Please seek legal advice from your lawyer for any questions specific to your workplace.