ClickCease

Bridget Addy v Auckland Steam 'N' Dry Limited and Graeme Stephens [2023] NZERA 568 - compliance order declined after late payment; further costs awarded

After an earlier unjustified dismissal determination and costs award, the employee applied for a compliance order because the employer and director had not paid. By the time the application was decided the outstanding sums had been paid, so no compliance order was made, but the Authority ordered...


Bridget Addy v Auckland Steam 'N' Dry Limited and Graeme Stephens [2023] NZERA 568

This is a follow-on Employment Relations Authority (ERA) decision about enforcing earlier orders. It is not a re-hearing of the underlying dismissal dispute. It is about whether a compliance order should be made, and what costs should follow where payment was made late.

At a glance

  • Citation: [2023] NZERA 568
  • Registry: Auckland
  • Authority member: Peter Fuiava
  • Investigation meeting: On the papers
  • Determination date: 29 September 2023
  • Core point: The respondent was late paying earlier ordered sums, but had paid by the time this compliance application was determined.
  • Orders in this decision: Filing fee reimbursement of $71.55 and costs of $900 (both payable within 28 days).

Background: what happened before this compliance application

The applicant had already succeeded in earlier proceedings against the respondents. The Authority refers to:

  • The primary determination ([2022] NZERA 657), which ordered payments to the applicant including: $3,600 for lost wages, $8,000 compensation, and a $2,000 global penalty for various statutory breaches.
  • A later costs determination ([2023] NZERA 157), which ordered costs of $4,500 (based on the daily tariff for a one-day investigation meeting).

The problem was not that the applicant had no orders. The problem was that the respondents did not pay on time, which forced the applicant to take further steps to enforce what the Authority had already ordered.

What this application was about

The applicant applied for a compliance order under s 137(1)(b) of the Employment Relations Act 2000. A compliance order is a tool the Authority can use when a person has not observed or complied with an Authority order or determination.

The Authority records that the respondents had not complied, and that the applicant commenced this proceeding on 23 February 2023. During the compliance process, the respondents made payments into the applicant's bank account, including two electronic payments in June 2023 totalling $10,000, and later payments on 31 July 2023 ($5,000) and 31 August 2023 ($3,100). By the time the Authority made this determination, the Authority was satisfied the outstanding money had been paid.

How the Authority investigated and why there was still a costs issue

The matter was dealt with "on the papers". The applicant filed submissions in August and September 2023. There was no appearance by the respondents. The Authority held a case management conference and gave the respondents opportunities and extensions to file evidence, but no response was filed.

Once the Authority confirmed all ordered monies had been paid, the Authority said it could not make a compliance order because there was nothing left to compel. However, the Authority accepted the applicant had still been put to further expense and effort to enforce the earlier orders, and that costs and reasonable expenses needed to be addressed.

What the Authority decided

  • No compliance order: because the respondent had paid the ordered sums by the time of determination, the Authority made no compliance order.
  • Some additional claims declined: the Authority declined to award reimbursement for counselling costs totalling $1,200, lost wages of $439.06, and a penalty under s 134A for obstructing or delaying the investigation. The Authority said that if a compliance order had been needed it may have been appropriate to consider those claims further, but it was no longer necessary and the matter needed finality.
  • Filing fee reimbursement: the Authority ordered reimbursement of the filing fee of $71.55.
  • Costs: the Authority ordered costs of $900, noting the application was straightforward and completed on the papers, and applying the principle that costs should be modest.

Orders made in this determination

  • Reimbursement: $71.55 (filing fee), payable within 28 days.
  • Costs: $900, payable within 28 days.

Why this decision matters

  • Enforcement has a cost: even when a party eventually pays, late payment can force the successful party to incur extra time and cost to chase compliance.
  • Compliance applications can become "costs only": once payment is made, the compliance order itself may fall away, but the Authority can still deal with filing fee reimbursement and costs.
  • Keep evidence of payment dates: this determination turned on when payments were made and whether anything remained unpaid.
If you have an active employment problem and deadlines, get advice early. If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.

Read the full ERA determination (embedded)

If the embedded PDF does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.

Mobile / tablet tip: Some browsers do not display embedded PDFs reliably. Use the "Open" button above.


Source: Employment Relations Authority determination hosted on determinations.era.govt.nz.

0800 WIN KIWI

Search
Search articles and guides.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
Layth Abu-Laban v Everest Corporation Limited [2026] NZERA 292 - permanent automotive technician dismissed after employer tried to treat employment as an unrenewed one-year contract; unjustified dismissal upheld; employer counterclaim failed

Everest Corporation Limited told an automotive technician his employment was ending because it would not renew what it said was a one-year contract. The ERA found the agreement was permanent, the dismissal process was non-existent, and the employer's later allegations of poor workmanship, customer solicitation, misuse of property and theft were not substantiated...

Kyle Horsefield v Eurocars Limited [2026] NZERA 293 - car salesperson labelled casual was a permanent employee; dismissal by text message unjustified; $12,345 ordered

Eurocars labelled a new car salesperson as casual and then texted him that his casual employment was terminated because he was busy with a lawyer and physio. The ERA found the real relationship was permanent on an as-required basis, the text was a summary dismissal, and the employer had no fair process or substantive justification...

Lyon Kawhaaru v The Deck Tahuna Limited [2026] NZERA 288 - cafe worker told by email he was 'instant dismissed' after customer incident; unjustified dismissal upheld; remedies reduced 25% for contribution

After a customer incident captured on CCTV, the employer emailed that the matter was serious misconduct and 'will result in instant dismissal effective from 4 June'. The ERA held that was an unequivocal sending away: the worker was dismissed without any fair process and did not abandon...

Nicholas Gordon Pilcher v Brandt Tractor Limited [2026] NZERA 273 - dismissal for untested bullying complaints held unjustified; de facto suspension unjustified; $19,360 compensation + 4 months' lost pay

A sales manager was put on 'special leave' while four bullying/harassment complaints were being investigated, but his phone and laptop were taken and he was removed from the workplace without prior consultation. Five days later he was dismissed for serious misconduct without being given the...

Phil Jacklin v Planit Software Testing Limited [2026] NZERA 264 - bonus clause held discretionary; KPI delay breached contract; $10,000 unjustified disadvantage award

A general manager resigned after months of dispute about a short term incentive (STI) clause. He believed he was entitled to 25% of salary, paid quarterly, and that KPIs had to be issued by 1 April. The ERA rejected the constructive dismissal claim because the STI was discretionary and annual,...

Daniel Bly v FutureCo Limited [2026] NZERA 269 - dismissal for Instagram posts and Slack messages held unjustified; $15,000 compensation; 6 months' pay less 50% contribution

A lead developer on a high-pressure KFC app project posted about exhaustion on Instagram and sent blunt messages to a junior developer. FutureCo treated this as serious misconduct and dismissed him. The ERA held the dismissal unjustified, found excessive hours were an unjustified disadvantage,...

Browse topics