| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 406/08 |
| Determination date | 01 December 2008 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | M Smyth ; E Davies |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Challis v Manukau City Council |
| Summary | COMPLIANCE ORDER - DISPUTE – Applicant sought compliance with terms of settlement – Clause stated respondent to pay applicant “$x (gross)” being legal costs and other lost benefits – Respondent paid applicant $x less income tax - Applicant claimed respondent should not have deducted income tax from payment – Respondent argued plain and ordinary meaning of “gross” was “not net” so tax deductable – Authority found issue centred on meaning and application of “gross” – Found gross meant tax deductable from sum – However, found use of “gross” did not equate to agreement tax payable on sum in question – Found respondent going too far in saying “gross” meant sum must first have tax deducted - Found respondent breached settlement agreement by failing to pay full amount owed – Authority ordered respondent to pay amount of tax deducted in respect of “legal costs” – Authority unable to comment on whether payment in respect of “other benefits” taxable or not – Found if payment not taxable, respondent to reimburse applicant accordingly – Interest payable on sums |
| Result | Application granted ; Orders made ; Interest (7.8%) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Statutes | ERA s149 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 406_08.pdf [pdf 231 KB] |