| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 67/07 |
| Hearing date | 12 Apr 2007 |
| Determination date | 30 April 2007 |
| Member | D Asher |
| Representation | G Ogilvie ; no appearance |
| Location | Wellington |
| Parties | Grenside v Gaskin |
| Summary | BREACH OF CONTRACT - Matter dealt with on papers - No appearance for respondent - Other than statement in reply no submissions filed by respondent - Applicant alleged respondent breached confidentiality of mediated settlement and sought damages and penalty – After parties settlement reached at mediation, applicant applied for taxi licence - Respondent emailed LTNZ referencing his dismissal of applicant, how much it cost him in “unfair dismissal costs” and made other allegations - As result of email LTNZ halted application - LTNZ obliged to make inquiries on applicant’s fitness to hold licence - Because other allegations contested and irrelevant to present application, non-publication of allegations ordered - Respondent breached obligation to keep fact of proceedings, settlement and its terms confidential - Breaches gratuitous, deliberate, and amounted to serious breach of applicant’s employment agreement - Unfair dismissal costs" not reference to legal costs and close to amount agreed in settlement - Respondent claimed properly exercised right to file objection under public notification - Claim rejected since allegations not relevant to purpose of objection and had nothing to do with applicant's character/fitness to hold licence - Other prohibited allegations may have proved relevant and could have been advanced without unnecessarily breaching confidentiality obligations - However, respondent clearly not prepared to appear in Authority - Damages - Applicant claimed breach affected ongoing employment in taxi industry - Claim unsupported by evidence - Reasonable to expect some evidence of impact email had on application for licence and re-employment experiences - Unconscionable for applicant to recover damages out of proportion to actual loss - Damages not established - PENALTY - Respondent largely failed to defend very serious claim - Respondent well-placed to communicate concerns without reporting dismissal and amount it cost him - Comments unrelated to application and clearly breached undertakings as to confidentiality - Due to distress caused applicant awarded half of penalty - COSTS - Length of investigation meeting not specified - Applicant awarded fair and reasonable costs of $1,800" |
| Result | Application granted (Breach of contract) ; Application dismissed (Damages) ; Penalty ($4,000)($2,000 payable to Crown)($2,000 payable to applicant) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($1,800) |
| Main Category | Breach of Contract |
| Statutes | ERA s133(1)(a);ERA s135(2)(a);ERA s136(2);ERA s149;ERA s159;ERA s173;ERA Second Schedule cl12;ERA Second Schedule cl10(2);Transport Services Licensing Act 1989 |
| Cases Cited | Kerr v Associated Aviation (Wellington) Ltd [2005] ERNZ 632;Ozturk v Gultekin t/a Halikarnas Restaurant [2004] 1 ERNZ 572 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 67_07.pdf [pdf 27 KB] |