| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 20/04 |
| Determination date | 24 February 2004 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | P Lawson ; S Knowles |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Cooper v Dunedin City Council |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - BREACH OF CONTRACT - Application for reopening Authority investigation - No objection by respondent provided costs to lie where they fall - Matter reopened to consider whether damages appropriate - Substantive case concerned media release about applicant's resignation which applicant not consulted about - Authority had found no unjustified disadvantage by release of personal information but found breach of implied terms of trust, confidence and fair dealing - Authority not asked to consider award of damages at investigation meeting - Respondent alleged applicant already compensated for any breach by payment of notice period - Health difficulties not consequence of breach - Emotional consequence suffered by applicant reasonably foreseeable to respondent - Breach of contract caused applicant emotional distress and loss of dignity - Respondent apologising and paying out notice period not settlement of damages claim - PENALTY - Issue of penalty raised for first time - Whether claim within time - Even if claim within time, would not have found suitable case for penalty - Business development officer |
| Result | Application granted ; Damages ($2,000) ; Costs to lie where they fall |
| Statutes | ERA s135(5);ERA s160(3);ERA s161(1) |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |