Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
Isherwood v Apex Car Rentals Ltd
12 Oct 2006, H Doyle, CA 148/06, (4 pages)
COMPLIANCE ORDER - Applicant sought compliance with Record of Settlement - Respondent claimed complied with settlement - Settlement clause provided once amounts, including salary paid, no further payments due - Applicant claimed "salary" definition wider than ordinary salary and included additional holiday and lieu entitlements - Amount owed unclear in settlement - Respondent sent copies of settlement to applicant to sign along with "without prejudice" letter - Letter stated would receive three days salary -Series of without prejudice communications regarding settling matter - Without prejudice protection continued to attach to such communications after settlement of an employment relationship problem - However, consideration of letter necessary to determine whether agreement reached - Authority risked being misled on amount to be paid under clause - Terms of settlement clearly accepted - Matter not one of interpretation - Letter clear about payment and sent before applicant signed settlement - Respondent entitled, in absence of rejection, counter offer, or other response, to rely on settlement on basis of payments in letter - Payment of additional entitlements not provided for in letter - Respondent paid three days salary - Terms of settlement complied with - Not entitled to compliance order - PENALTY - Counterclaim - Respondent alleged applicant in breach of good faith by claiming on settled matter and that claim misled Authority - Exemplary damages, penalties and full solicitor client costs initially sought - Damages no longer sought - Issue whether duty of good faith in s4(4) Employment Relations Act 2000 applied to matter - No submissions heard and no finding made on issue since applicant claimed did not know of letter - Unlikely would have found breach warranting penalty - All remaining terms of settlement prohibited from publication
Result: Application dismissed ; Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved
Rural Women New Zealand Incorporated v Jehma
2 Nov 2006, D Asher, WA 151/06, (4 pages)
COMPLIANCE ORDER - Compliance with record of settlement sought - Respondent confirmed had not adhered to terms of settlement - Attributed failure to period of unemployment and other financial commitments - Respondent submitted now able to pay sum in instalments as originally agreed - Applicant also sought interest and costs - Respondent had not disputed any aspect of applicant's claim - However, Authority did not accept interest claim because of amount sought and applicant had claimed it under District Courts Act 1947 - Current 90-day bill rate fair and reasonable rate - Compliance ordered - COSTS - Length of investigation meting not specified - Applicant awarded costs of $2,000
Result: Application granted ; Compliance ordered ; Interest ($186)(7.58%) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($2,000) ; Disbursements ($70)(Filing fee)
Uelese & Uelese v Conference of Samoan Adventist Church
28 Aug 2006, L Robinson, AA 275/06, (3 pages)
COMPLIANCE ORDER - Applicants sought compliance with record of settlement - Authority's file documented considerable difficulty in obtaining respondent's co-operation - Authority minute directed investigation meeting to proceed as consequence of respondent's failure to take any steps - No appearance by respondent - Authority satisfied respondent had not complied with record of settlement - No evidence of excuse or justification for failure - Compliance ordered - Interest 9 percent - Leave reserved for applicants to bring further application to Authority in event of continuing non-compliance - PENALTY - On balance of probabilities, case deserved penalty - Penalty necessary to encourage observance of objects of Employment Relations Act 2000 - COSTS - Length of investigation meeting not specified - Applicants sought full costs of $1,681 - Costs reasonable - Entirely appropriate applicants be reimbursed full costs
Result: Compliance ordered ; Interest (9%) ; Penalty ($2,000)($1,000 payable to Crown, $1,000 payable to applicants) ; Costs in favour of applicants ($1,681.25)
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
