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
Regina Rasheed v Commissioner of Zayed College for Girls [2026] NZERA 326 - school principal reinstated after unjustified dismissal

Regina Rasheed was principal of Zayed College for Girls for about 14 years before being dismissed by the Commissioner in June 2025. The ERA found unjustified disadvantage, unjustified suspension, unjustified dismissal, breaches of the collective agreement and good faith, and ordered reinstatement, lost wages, 23 days sick leave reimbursement, $40,000 compensation, and a Trust penalty...

Natalie Butler-Smith v David and Dale Cavey t/a DG and DV Cavey Partnership [2026] NZERA 324 - farm assistant dismissed before returning from parental leave

Natalie Butler-Smith was a part-time permanent farm assistant who went on parental leave and expected to return to work in February 2024. Before her return, the Partnership told her that her employment was being terminated because of health and safety issues arising from her having a baby on the farm. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified and ordered $32,432...

Raheel Reddy v Studio Image Limited [2026] NZERA 323 - barber dismissed by text message after lateness and attendance issues

Raheel Reddy worked as a barber for Studio Image Limited. After he was late attending work because he was viewing a replacement car after an accident, Studio Image sent text messages telling him he would be paid his remaining leave and should collect his tools. The ERA found this was a dismissal, not a resignation, and that the dismissal was unjustified.

Junchen Xu v Aurora Developments Limited [2026] NZERA 320 - quantity surveyor wins unpaid wages, holiday pay and unjustified redundancy claim

Junchen Xu worked for Aurora Developments Limited as a project quantity surveyor. The ERA found he was an employee from 1 March 2021, despite the employer saying the first month was only learning and observation. The ERA also found his redundancy dismissal was unjustified because ADL did not consult, did not provide a proposal, and did not explain the business reasons before ending his employment.

Devon Whitham v Brutalitees Limited and Christine Dawson [2026] NZERA 325 - tattoo and piercing apprentice was an employee, not a contractor

Devon Whitham worked at Brutal Ink in New Plymouth after responding to a Facebook post for a piercing apprentice. The ERA found she was an employee of Brutalitees Limited, not an independent contractor, and that her dismissal at a heated meeting on 19 September 2024 was unjustified. The ERA ordered unpaid wages, holiday pay, 13 weeks lost remuneration, $15,000 compensation, and penalties...

Mujahid Khan v Chief Executive of the Ministry for Primary Industries [2026] NZERA 316 - interim reinstatement ordered after dismissal of senior quarantine officer

Mujahid Khan was dismissed by the Ministry for Primary Industries after 18 years as a senior quarantine officer. MPI relied on complaints about a lunch visit to a friend's house during work hours, use of an MPI vehicle, and an allegation that he raised his voice at a colleague. The ERA did not finally decide the unjustified dismissal claim, but found there was a serious question to be tried and ordered interim reinstatement to payroll within 5 working days and to his former position within 7 working days...

Browse topics