| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 137 |
| Determination date | 09 July 2012 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | D Lloyd ; R Brazil |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Webb v Environmental Accounting Services Ltd & Ors |
| Other Parties | Green, Green |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Whether settlement agreement concluded between parties – Authority found respondent did not accept applicant’s counter-offer – Found differences between applicant’s terms of settlement and respondent’s terms of settlement not so minor as to be irrelevant – Found no evidence applicant acted on belief settlement reached prior to being told by respondent offer had lapsed – Found respondent not estopped from denying existence of settlement agreement – No settlement agreement |
| Abstract | Applicant claimed settlement agreement concluded with respondent. Following dispute with respondent applicant considered employment relationship damaged irreparably and investigated possibility of exit arrangement. Respondent e-mailed applicant (“e-mail one”) respondent’s offer and stated offer to be withdrawn if not accepted by specified date. Applicant counter-offered (“e-mail two”) stating applicant willing to accept offer subject to two new claims being accepted and two amounts offered in e-mail one being classified as compensation. Respondent replied (“e-mail three”) noting applicant’s willingness to accept respondent’s offer in e-mail one, attaching draft record of settlement (“ROS”) and proposed wording for applicant’s reference, and stating offer in e-mail one with addition of two new claims in e-mail two would remain open until specified date. Respondent did not agree to classify amounts in e-mail one as compensation. Two days later respondent advised applicant offer had expired. Applicant signed ROS and resigned. Applicant claimed e-mail three respondent’s acceptance of applicant’s counter-offer in e-mail two and settlement agreement reached. Applicant claimed if e-mail three not respondent’s acceptance of applicant’s counter-offer, differences between terms outlined in e-mail two and e-mail three so minor as to be irrelevant. Applicant claimed if no binding agreement, by signing ROS and resigning applicant acted in belief settlement agreement reached and respondent estopped from denying existence of settlement agreement.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Respondent’s response in e-mail three based on flawed understanding that applicant willing to accept respondent’s offer in e-mail one. Respondent did not accept applicant’s counter-offer as respondent rejected classifying two amounts as compensation. Classification of two amounts would affect cost to respondent and proposed reference for applicant significant part of agreement that still required applicant’s agreement. Differences between terms outlined in e-mail two and e-mail three not so minor as to be irrelevant. E-mail three fresh counter-offer by respondent that applicant did not accept before withdrawn. No evidence applicant acted on belief settlement reached prior to being told by respondent offer had lapsed. Respondent not estopped from denying existence of settlement agreement. No settlement agreement. |
| Result | Application dismissed; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s149 |
| Cases Cited | Broughtons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 76 ALR 513;Mechenex Pacific Services Ltd v TCA Airconditioning (New Zealand) Ltd [1991] 2 NZLR 393;Reporoa Stores Ltd v Treloar [1958] NZLR 177;Wade v Hume Pack-N-Cool Ltd (2012) 9 NZELR 492 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_137.pdf [pdf 165 KB] |