Three60 Consult Logo

98K Damages Breach Privacy Cake

Posted on: Mar 05, 2015

The Human Rights Review Tribunal has found Credit Union Baywide, trading as NZCU Baywide, interfered with the privacy of a former employee by distributing a Facebook screenshot to Hawke’s Bay employment agencies with a warning against employing her.

In Hammond v Credit Union Baywide [2015] NZHRRT 6 (2 March 2015), the tribunal awarded $98,000 compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings, plus damages totalling a further $70,070.88 for pecuniary loss, legal expenses, and loss of benefit.

The proceedings arose after the former employee, Karen Hammond, and her friend had both resigned from NZCU Baywide. They attended a private dinner party of 10 close personal friends, five of whom were current NZCU Baywide employees. Ms Hammond made a cake for the party, the top of which was iced with the words “NZCU F*CK YOU” and the side of the cake bore the word “C*NT”.

Ms Hammond later uploaded a picture of the cake to her Facebook page. The Tribunal says the privacy setting on her Facebook page meant only those accepted by her as friends had access to the photograph.

NZCU Baywide gained access to the page and a screenshot of the cake was taken. This was distributed by NZCU Baywide to multiple employment agencies in Hawke’s Bay by email. Along with contemporaneous phone calls from NZCU Baywide, they were warned against employing Ms Hammond.

An internal email was also sent by the CEO of NZCU Baywide to staff disclosing information about the circumstances in which Ms Hammond had earlier resigned from NZCU Baywide. The Tribunal says NZCU Baywide had also placed severe pressure on her new employer to terminate Ms Hammond’s employment.

In the proceedings before the Tribunal, Ms Hammond contended that NZCU Baywide had breached Information Privacy Principle 11. NZCU Baywide admitted this for the disclosures to the employment agencies and the internal email but denied there was any consequential interference with Ms Hammond’s privacy.

After assessing the credibility of the witnesses, the Tribunal found that an interference with Ms Hammond’s privacy as defined in section 66 of the Privacy Act 1993 had been established.

The Tribunal awarded damages of $38,350 for pecuniary loss, $15,543.10 for legal expenses, and $16,177.78 for loss of benefit. It made a further award of $98,000 for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings.

Assessing the damages for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury the Tribunal said that the aggrieved individual was not required by section 88 to establish all three heads of damages referred to in section 88(1)(c). Those heads were to be read disjunctively and it was not to be assumed that because one head of damage was established, the others were as well.

Where, as in the current proceedings, it was found for the purpose of section 66(1)(b)(iii) there was significant humiliation, significant loss of dignity and significant injury to the feelings of the plaintiff, it followed that humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings had been established for the purposes of section 88(1)(c) which does not require that these forms of emotional harm be “significant”.

The very nature of the section 88(1)(c) heads of damages meant there was a subjective element to their assessment. Not only were the circumstances fact specific, but they also turned on the personality of the aggrieved individual.

The Tribunal said that there was no reason why it, at first instance, could not come to the conclusion that the time has come for a recalibration of the level of awards against which there should be some consistency.

“… awards for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings are fact-driven and vary widely. At the risk of over-simplification, however, it can be said there are presently three bands. At the less serious end of the scale awards have ranged upwards to $10,000. For more serious cases awards have ranged between $10,000 to about (say) $50,000,” the Tribunal said (at [176]).  For the most serious category of cases it is contemplated awards will be in excess of $50,000.”

“It must be emphasised that these bands are simply descriptive. They are not prescriptive. It is not intended they be a bed of Procrustes on which all future awards must be fitted. At most they are a rough guide and cannot abridge the general principles identified earlier in this decision.”

Source: The Law Society 

 

Disclaimer

This article, and any information contained on our website is necessarily brief and general in nature, and should not be substituted for professional advice. You should always seek professional advice before taking any action in relation to the matters addressed.

Disclaimer

This article, and any information contained on our website is necessarily brief and general in nature, and should not be substituted for professional advice. You should always seek professional advice before taking any action in relation to the matters addressed.

Subscribe to Newsletter

Christmas is coming…

Christmas is coming…

Once Labour Day has been [yes, believe it or not it’s this coming Monday], the next public holidays are at Christmas and New Year. It always feels like employers have to put a bit more thought into Christmas and New Year because: there are four public holidays; this is a time that many businesses have their annual closedown period; many employees take their annual leave; some employees don’t have enough leave to cover this period; some employment agreements have special rates for these public holidays; and, let’s face it, it is a busy busy busy time. In the next few weeks, my colleague, Tasneem Begum, and I will be offering a free webinar for those employers who want a bit more information around those tricky calculations for leave at this time of the year. We will also be able to answer the questions you have and the challenges you face with leave during the Christmas/New Year period. You are not alone with the questions you have – Questions we are often asked at this time of the year are about employing staff to cover the busy Christmas period

Read More
What the heck is going on with pay?

What the heck is going on with pay?

While we are conscious of the impact that inflation is having on wage and salary conversations, there are four other levers that have been, and are being, used to bring about fundamental change and significant uplift to pay in New Zealand. The Government is using these levers to drive increases in pay at various levels in ways that we may not be conscious of. However, when brought together as a single thread, they are having a big impact.

Read More
To Mediate or not to Mediate

To Mediate or not to Mediate

To mediate or not to mediate – that is the question… While William Shakespeare put into verse Hamlet’s soliloquy in endless agonising verse about dire choices with absolutely no chance of a happy ending – it is not so with mediation. Change the name, and the thinking around the word mediation. Let’s start thinking about it and calling it “an opportunity”. That’s really what mediation is; an opportunity for parties in conflict to come together and sort out their problem(s). It doesn’t have to be the only option, but it should be considered as a first step.

Read More
PREV NEXT