4 December 2015 · LawTalk 879
Schedule of Compensation award given by the Human Rights Review Tribunal 2012-2015 3 Date
Case
Act
11 August 2015
Holmes v Housing New Zealand Corporation [2015] NZHRRT 36
PA
$400
‣ 29 July 2015
Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Crampton [2015] NZHRRT 35
PA
$18,000
‣ 7 July 2015
Watson v Capital & Coast District Health Board [2015] NzHRRT 27
PA
$10,000
Taylor v Orcon Ltd [2015] NZHRRT 15
PA
$15,000
‣ 9 March 2015
Satnam Singh v Shane Singh and Scorpion Liquor (2006) Ltd [2015] NZHRRT 8
HRA
‣ 2 March 2015
Hammond v Credit Union Baywide [2015] NZHRRT 6
PA
Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Schubach [2015] NZHRRT 4
PA
$5,000
Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Valli and Hughes [2014] NZHRRT 58
PA
$15,000
Holmes v Housing New Zealand Corporation [2014] NZHRRT 54
PA
$10,000
Meulenbroek v Vision Antenna Systems Ltd [2014] NZHRRT 51
HRA
$25,000
Armfield v Naughton [2014] NZHRRT 48
PA
‣ 24 February 2014
Nakarawa v AFFCO New Zealand Ltd [2014] NZHRRT 9
HRA
$15,000
‣ 12 February 2014
DML v Montgomery [2014] NZHRRT 6
HRA
$25,000
14 May 2015
19 February 2015 ‣ 15 December 2014 3 November 2014 ‣ 14 October 2014 6 October 2014
20 September 2013 Geary v Accident Compensation Corporation [2013] NZHRRT 34
Compensation Award
$45,000 †
PA
$98,000
$7,000
$5,000
25 February 2013
Director of Proceedings v Emms [2013] NZHRRT 5
HDCA
$15,000
1 November 2012
Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Hamilton [2012] NZHRRT 24
PA
$15,000
30 August 2012
Holmes v Ministry of Social Development [2012] NZHRRT 19
PA
$2,000 ‡
23 August 2012
Director of Human Rights Proceedings v INS Restorations Ltd [2012] NZHRRT 18
PA
$20,000
6 July 2012
Fehling v South Westland Area School [2012] NZRRT 15
PA
$10,000
28 March 2012
Director of Proceedings v Zhu [2012] NZHRRT 7
HDCA
$5,000
26 April 2012
Hale v Chester Burt Funeral Home Ltd [2012] NZHRRT 10
PA
$5,000
27 March 2012
Lochead-MacMillan v AMI Insurance Ltd [2012] NZHRRT 5
PA
$10,000
Key: are of limited use as they do not provide sufficient detail of the facts justifying each particular award.4 This criticism can be similarly applied to discerning any trend from the table regarding whether an award in the HRRT would be higher than if it were to be heard by the Authority. However, these tables do indicate the range and frequency of awards given by the HRRT. Notably in Nakarawa v AFFCO New Zealand Ltd [2014] NZHRRT 9, the HRRT stated that the plaintiff ’s original claim for $2,000 under the Human Rights Act was “modest” when compared to compensation awards under analogous provisions in the Privacy Act. The HRRT considered a range of cases where the awards ranged from $10,000 to $20,000. The HRRT ordered that compensation of $15,000 should be awarded. This case demonstrates that the HRRT has considered the range and frequency of awards in other cases to determine the amount of compensation that should be awarded. There is strong evidence to suggest that compensatory awards given by the Authority and Employment Court have fallen behind over the years. The recent judgments in Hall v Dionex Pty Ltd and Rodkiss v Carter Holt Harvey may provide some impetus for compensation awards to increase to match inflation, especially in mid-range cases. There is a strong basis to argue that cases likely to garner an award for compensation in the upper range are best dealt with in the HRRT, if at all possible. This said, it is unclear whether mid-range cases will fare any better there than they would if heard by the Authority or Employment Court. ▪ Peter Cullen is a partner, and Calum Cartwright a lawyer, at Cullen – the Employment Law Firm. Peter is also a member of New Zealand Law Society Employment Law Committee.
PA = Privacy Act 1993 HRA = Human Rights Act 1993, HDCA = Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 ‣ = Cases arising from an employment relationship Figures include compensation awarded for emotional harm under s 88(1)(c) of the Privacy Act 1993, s54(1)(c) damages for emotional harm under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 and s 92I(3)(c) and 92M(1)(c) of the Human Rights Act 1993. † Decision is being appealed. ‡ The HRRT found there were two separate breaches and awarded $10,000 and $7,000 compensation humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings. The decision was appealed to the High Court and the award for $10,000 was set aside and the award for $7,000 reduced to $2,000. 1 Citing Kathryn Beck and Hamish Kynaston “Remedies – we’ve been thinking…” (paper presented to New Zealand Law Society 10th Employment Law Conference, October 2014) 2 Awards included in this table have been limited to compensation awards over $25,000 under s 123(c)(i) of the Employment Relations Act 2000, and have excluded breach of contract claims, Employment Contract Act 1991 claims and Health and Safety Act 1992 claims. 3 Retrieved from Ministry of Justice “Schedule of damages awarded”. (www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/human-rights-reviewtribunal/decisions-of-the-human-rights-review-tribunal/scheduleof-damages-awarded). 4 See NZ Refining Co Ltd v Garrity EC Auckland AEC69/97, 9 July 1997.
37