Bracewell v Richmond Services Limited - [2014] NZCA 629

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA410/2014
[2014] NZCA 629

BETWEEN	JAN SUSAN BRACEWELL Applicant
AND	RICHMOND SERVICES LIMITED Respondent

Court:

Randerson, Miller and Cooper JJ

Counsel:

Applicant in Person
P M Shaw for Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)

19 December 2014 at 10:00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time is granted.
BThe application for approval of representation by a lay advocate is declined.
C The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
D The respondent is entitled to costs for a standard application on a Band A basis with usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Randerson J)

Introduction

The applicant Ms Bracewell was employed as a community support worker by the respondent Richmond Services Ltd (Richmond), a national provider of health services under contract to various district health boards and the Ministry of Health.
Ms Bracewell resigned from her employment on 28 February 2013. She had alleged that one of Richmond’s clients (Client A) was being permitted by personnel at Richmond and the relevant district health board (the DHB) to engage in abusive prostitution, causing, and having the potential to cause, significant harm to her.
When Ms Bracewell resigned from her employment she took copies of Client A’s clinical records. She disclosed these records to various parties in the hope they would take action to protect Client A from the harm Ms Bracewell perceived was being caused to Client A. Ms Bracewell also intended to use the clinical records to bring complaints about Richmond and certain personnel of the DHB including a case manager and a consultant psychiatrist.
Richmond took proceedings under the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the ERA) against Ms Bracewell in the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) and was granted orders that Ms Bracewell and her employment advocate return the relevant records.[1] Ms Bracewell was also ordered to pay costs to Richmond of $3,375.[2] Ms Bracewell then challenged the decision of the Authority in the Employment Court, seeking orders setting aside the Authority’s determinations and also claiming $40,000 compensation. Richmond brought a cross-challenge seeking an order for the return of all confidential information; a permanent injunction restraining Ms Bracewell from disclosing or using any confidential information; and a penalty for each breach of the confidentiality clause of the employment agreement with Ms Bracewell.
[1]Richmond Services Ltd v Bracewell [2013] NZERA 481.
[2]Richmond Services Ltd v Bracewell [2013] NZERA 519.
In the Employment Court, Judge Corkill dismissed Ms Bracewell’s challenge to the Authority’s determination; granted an injunction for the return of the confidential information; and ordered Ms Bracewell and any agent of hers not to directly or indirectly use or disclose any of Richmond’s confidential information, including any information relating to its clients.[3] A penalty of $2,000 was imposed on Ms Bracewell for breach of the employment agreement.
[3]Richmond Services Ltd v Bracewell [2014] NZEmpC 111.
Ms Bracewell now seeks leave to appeal on questions of law against the judgment of the Employment…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bracewell v Richmond Services Limited

Details

AGLC: Bracewell v Richmond Services Limited [2014] NZCA 629
Case: [2014] NZCA 629
Decision Date: 19 December 2014 at 10:00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal from Ms Bracewell, who was employed as a community support worker by Richmond Services Ltd, a national provider of health services. Ms Bracewell resigned from her position and disclosed confidential client information to various parties, including family members and the media. Richmond Services Ltd brought proceedings against Ms Bracewell in the Employment Relations Authority and was granted orders that she return the relevant records and pay costs. Ms Bracewell challenged the decision in the Employment Court, which dismissed her challenge and granted Richmond an injunction for the return of the confidential information, a permanent injunction restraining her from disclosing or using any confidential information, and a penalty for each breach of the confidentiality clause of the employment agreement. Ms Bracewell sought leave to appeal on questions of law against the judgment of the Employment Court.

The legal issues that the Court of Appeal was required to decide included whether the Employment Court applied s 69 of the Evidence Act 2006 incorrectly in that it granted Richmond permission to admit confidential client information from DHB files but refused permission to her to admit confidential evidence relating to Client A’s care. The Court was also required to determine whether the Employment Court erred by misapplying the employment agreement and the Health Information Privacy Code and whether it erred by failing to consider her allegation that Richmond had concealed key evidence and thus misapplied the employment agreement and the Protected Disclosures Act 2000.

The Court of Appeal granted the application for an extension of time for appeal, declined the application for approval of representation by a lay advocate, and dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The Court found no error in the Employment Court’s decision and no question of law that, by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were that the application for an extension of time was granted, the application for approval of representation by a lay advocate was declined, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was entitled to costs for a standard application on a Band A basis with usual disbursements.

Orders