Settlor’s remorse flares after a $36k award evaporated

In late 2023, a six month restraint of trade injunction was granted in favour of a nationwide commercial cleaning company.   Following an investigation meeting by the Employment Relations Authority in mid- 2024, the Company was awarded more than $36,000 in damages, penalties and costs payable by its former employee Mr H and his new employer (and domestic partner) Ms T.

Ms T has a day job in admin and runs her cleaning business as a side hustle.

But there were multiple problems with this award, and a late-2024 consent judgment of the Employment Court ruled that no money would change hands between the parties after all.

The problems with the Company’s claim included:

• Mr H’s real hourly pay rate when he left the Company was too low to have supported such an award.

• Mr H couldn’t pay his share of the award and said that the Company wanted to bankrupt him to send a message to other employees thinking of jumping ship for better pay.

• While Mr H was injuncted, his replacement was assaulted by two employees of the Company. 

• Video footage of the assault was produced at the investigation meeting and while the evidence was not accepted at that stage, the issue popped up again after convictions were recorded.

• One of the Company’s two directors was warned by Police under the Harassment Act, and

• The other director was being prosecuted by MPI under the Animal Products Act (unrelated to the employment dispute).

Meanwhile, in a District Court…

In May 2025 a press release by MPI noted that the director, one of ten defendants, had been fined more than $70,000 for his part in an export fraud that entailed “deliberately and illegally altering export tallow for profit … The price of tallow is based on its free fatty acid level (FFA) and the lower the level, the higher the price. By illegally adding other oils, the defendants were able to command a higher price by lowering the free fatty acid levels.”

Three of the defendants were individuals and seven were companies.  The fines added up to more than $1.6 million. 

Leighton Associates didn’t report on the MPI matter, because it’s outside the scope of employment law, and mainstream media had it covered since 2023 anyway.   But we covered the non-compete dispute extensively before becoming aware of the MPI prosecution.

Cross-pollenation

The two matters converged, and Ms T, representing Mr H and herself in a challenge (appeal) to the Employment Court, and assisted behind the scenes by two advocates drafting Ms T’s submissions pro bono, took part in a Court teleconference regarding an application to stay the damages and penalties award pending the challenge.  Because the MPI charges, assault convictions and civil damages claim were informally linked by then, the resulting Stay judgement hints at Ms T managing to convince the Company’s two lawyers that their client did not come to Court with clean hands and it was therefore in its interests to walk away, as opposed to defending the challenge.

So the Company made a sensible business decision to walk away, as recorded by the consent judgement a few weeks later.

Settler’s remorse

In the wake of the MPI convictions, Mr H, who we understand has picked up a lot of local work that might have otherwise gone to the Company, was visited by Police after one of the directors (the one who had been warned under the Harassment Act, not the one prosecuted by MPI) accused Mr H of stealing three wheelie bins, a ladder and a cordless drill.  Mr H, who has not been charged, denies the allegations.

“Settler’s remorse” is usually attributed to employees who raise a personal grievance and eventually agree to a confidential compensation payout that doesn’t reflect their levels of distress, leading to lingering resentment.   In this case, it could be attributed to a co-director of the employer.

Notwithstanding this, the making of a false allegation or report to Police comes under Section 24 of the Summary Offences Act 1981.

Tristam Price, Editor