| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 440/10 |
| Hearing date | 11 Oct 2010 |
| Determination date | 12 October 2010 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | C Mansell ; A Swan |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Tree v Jansen Ltd |
| Summary | COMPLIANCE ORDER - Applicant sought compliance with Authority determinations - Applicant awarded compensation for hurt and humiliation and unpaid commission - Applicant subsequently awarded $4,000 costs in applicant’s favour - Respondent’s counterclaim for damages dismissed - Respondent challenging Authority’s dismissal of counterclaim - Pending hearing of challenge parties agreed respondent would pay compensation and commission awards into Employment Court (“EC”) - Respondent paid compensation award into EC but not commission payment - Respondent sought stay of Authority’s orders pending challenge - Applicant stated would consent to stay if outstanding sums paid into EC meanwhile - Respondent claimed would rather retain funds but offered to pay interest if unsuccessful - Authority found in public interest to grant conditional stay - Found challenge did not automatically operate as stay - Found Authority determinations legally enforceable and orders to be followed in full unless Authority or Court ordered stay - Found party could not arbitrarily or unilaterally decide how much, if any, of determination would abide by - Secondly, found payment of full amount into EC best protected interest of both parties pending challenge - Thirdly, found respondent had already agreed to pay full amount but had not complied - Fourthly, found circumstances appeared consistent with legal principles - Found stay preserved status quo - Authority ordered stay of orders made in determinations - Stay ordered on condition respondent pay into EC costs and commission awards within seven days of date of determination - Failure to meet condition would render respondent liable to pay applicant amount in full - COSTS - Less than one day investigation meeting - Applicant sought full costs for application on basis should not have been put to expense of making it - Found applicant entitled to costs - Respondent to pay applicant $750 contribution to costs |
| Result | Orders made ; Costs in favour of applicant ($750) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)(Filing fee) |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s180 |
| Cases Cited | Tree v Jansen Ltd unreported, R Arthur, 13 Apr 2010, AA 169/10;Tree v Jansen Ltd unreported, R Arthur, 26 Jul 2010, AA 169A/10 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 440_10.pdf [pdf 17 KB] |