| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 174 |
| Hearing date | 25 Jul 2012 |
| Determination date | 21 August 2012 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | J Traynor, E Coburn ; J Lovely |
| Location | Timaru |
| Parties | Darroch Ltd v Chisnall |
| Summary | BREACH OF CONTRACT – Applicant sought damages for respondent’s breach of employment agreement (“EA”) – Authority found files taken by respondent contained proprietary information and provision in EA that respondent to return proprietary information implied requirement information be returned immediately – Found respondent breached EA – Found no evidence any valuation files missing or any work required in respect of files while missing – No damages for breach of contract – PENALTY – Applicant sought penalty for respondent’s breach of EA – Found respondent breached EA deliberately and should have known actions inappropriate - $3,000 penalty appropriate – Valuer |
| Abstract | Respondent employed by applicant as valuer. Applicant sought damages and penalty for respondent’s breach of employment agreement (“EA”). EA provided respondent to return files or documents containing proprietary information after termination of employment. Respondent resigned. Respondent concerned about state respondent leaving files in and took number of files home to work on after cessation of employment. Three months later applicant contacted respondent to inquire about missing files. Respondent replied did not have any files but subsequently e-mailed applicant that did have files and stated all files returned that day. E-mail inaccurate as further files returned later and some files destroyed. Respondent claimed assumed destruction acceptable as aware of files being destroyed previously. Respondent claimed files did not contain proprietary or commercially sensitive information.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;BREACH OF CONTRACT: Files taken by respondent may have contained information about properties giving applicant commercial advantage in terms of time needed to complete next valuation. Files contained proprietary information. Provision in EA that respondent to return proprietary information implied requirement information be returned immediately. Respondent breached EA. No evidence any valuation files missing or any work required in respect of files while missing. No damages for breach of contract.;PENALTY: Respondent breached EA deliberately. Respondent should have known actions inappropriate as had been told should not have been on applicant’s premises handling files after resignation. Respondent unaware of circumstances in which documents destroyed previously. $3,000 penalty appropriate. |
| Result | Application granted (penalty); Penalty $3,000 (payable to applicant); Application dismissed (breach of contract); Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Breach of Contract |
| Statutes | ERA s136(2) |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_174.pdf [pdf 219 KB] |