| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 384 |
| Determination date | 26 October 2012 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | P Nand (in person) ; P Shaw |
| Parties | Nand v Richmond NZ Trust Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE - Parties disputed whether settlement agreement (“SA”) enforceable – Respondent claimed applicant could not continue with matter in Authority as parties had already settled - Authority found applicant’s advocate, as applicant’s representative, reached agreement with respondent with certain terms, payment as consideration and settlement agreement (“SA”) intended to create legal relationship between parties – Found SA terms final and binding – Found applicant capable of making decision about whether to settle and settlement amount when entered into SA – Found applicant could not proceed with matter in Authority - Question answered in favour of respondent |
| Abstract | Parties disputed whether settlement agreement (“SA”) enforceable. Applicant initially claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent and respondent failed to roster applicant for duty over seven week period. Parties later advised Authority matter had settled. Applicant later advised Authority wished to proceed with claims. Respondent claimed parties had entered into binding SA and applicant could no longer proceed with matter. Applicant’s advocate (“I”) claimed explained to applicant if accepted respondent’s offer applicant’s personal grievance settled and on full and final basis. I prepared record SA which respondent signed. Applicant did not sign SA and advised I had changed mind and wanted increased settlement amount. Applicant claimed had accepted respondent’s offer when was “of unsound mind.” I claimed no evidence applicant not cogent or unable to think intelligently and had not expressed any doubts previously. Applicant claimed SA not binding as not signed by applicant.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;DISPUTE: I as applicant’s representative reached agreement with respondent with certain terms, payment as consideration and SA intended to create legal relationship between parties. SA did not specify that SA needed to be in writing before became binding. SA terms final and binding. Applicant capable of making decision about whether to settle and settlement amount when entered into SA. SA could not be set aside. Applicant could not proceed with matter in Authority. Question answered in favour of respondent. |
| Result | Question answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | ERA s149 |
| Cases Cited | Abernethy v Dynea New Zealand Ltd (No 2) [2007] ERNZ 462;Graham v Crestline Pty Ltd [2006] ERNZ 848;Penney v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd [2011] NZEmpC 151 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_384.pdf [pdf 229 KB] |