Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
Grenside v Gaskin
30 Apr 2007, D Asher, WA 67/07, (7 pages)
BREACH OF CONTRACT - Matter dealt with on papers - No appearance for respondent - Other than statement in reply no submissions filed by respondent - Applicant alleged respondent breached confidentiality of mediated settlement and sought damages and penalty - After parties settlement reached at mediation, applicant applied for taxi licence - Respondent emailed LTNZ referencing his dismissal of applicant, how much it cost him in "unfair dismissal costs" and made other allegations - As result of email LTNZ halted application - LTNZ obliged to make inquiries on applicant's fitness to hold licence - Because other allegations contested and irrelevant to present application, non-publication of allegations ordered - Respondent breached obligation to keep fact of proceedings, settlement and its terms confidential - Breaches gratuitous, deliberate, and amounted to serious breach of applicant's employment agreement - "Unfair dismissal costs" not reference to legal costs and close to amount agreed in settlement - Respondent claimed properly exercised right to file objection under public notification - Claim rejected since allegations not relevant to purpose of objection and had nothing to do with applicant's character/fitness to hold licence - Other prohibited allegations may have proved relevant and could have been advanced without unnecessarily breaching confidentiality obligations - However, respondent clearly not prepared to appear in Authority - Damages - Applicant claimed breach affected ongoing employment in taxi industry - Claim unsupported by evidence - Reasonable to expect some evidence of impact email had on application for licence and re-employment experiences - Unconscionable for applicant to recover damages out of proportion to actual loss - Damages not established - PENALTY - Respondent largely failed to defend very serious claim - Respondent well-placed to communicate concerns without reporting dismissal and amount it cost him - Comments unrelated to application and clearly breached undertakings as to confidentiality - Due to distress caused applicant awarded half of penalty - COSTS - Length of investigation meeting not specified - Applicant awarded fair and reasonable costs of $1,800
Result: Application granted (Breach of contract) ; Application dismissed (Breach of contract) ; Penalty ($4,000)($2,000 payable to Crown)($2,000 payable to applicant) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($1,800)
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
