Megan Ruddle, the former private chef of Sir Rod Drury, is the third woman to accuse Drury of making unwanted sexual advances towards her.
Her allegations follow those of two other former employees who reported similar behaviour by Drury, albeit at Xero.
Ruddle, who worked for Drury’s company Oto60 for over three years, initially on his luxury catamaran and later at his Queenstown retreat, claims that Drury kissed her on the lips over 50 times during her employment.
Ruddle claims that she left Drury’s company and raised a personal grievance for unjustifiable dismissal and sexual harassment because of this behaviour.
Contrary to Ruddle’s version of events, Drury has said Ruddle’s employment was terminated “with immediate effect following concerns regarding her conduct”.
Despite the conflicting versions of events, what isn’t contested is that the parties agreed to resolve the "employment dispute" by entering into a settlement agreement.
Drury has stated that this settlement was entered into because proper employment processes were not followed during Ruddle's departure.
Whilst it has been reported that neither party admitted to any fault when resolving the dispute, the settlement reached resulted in Ruddle receiving compensation. Additionally, reports indicate that the agreement included mutual confidentiality and non-disparagement obligations.
It would appear then that Ruddle’s public comments and Drury’s counter statements are in breach of those terms.
Ruddle has defended her apparent violation of the agreement, stating that she “never wanted to settle and sign an agreement in the first place”.
She further claimed that it is “in the best interests of people knowing what actually happened” and that it shouldn’t “be able to legally be covered up by an agreement.”
It is unclear whether the other former employees who have raised similar allegations against Drury also agreed to terms which required them to refrain from disparaging him and/or to keep matters confidential.
However in Ruddle’s case she appears to have made a deliberate decision to breach the confidentiality requirements of the agreement she entered into with Drury. This turns the spotlight on the enforceability of such agreements.
By all accounts, the settlement appears to have been formalised in the orthodox way, likely as a Record of Settlement under the Employment Relations Act.
Typically, once an agreement is reached between the parties, the terms are signed off by a mediator from MBIE, to ensure it becomes a final, binding and enforceable contract. Confidentiality requirements are usually part of such agreements.
If a party later speaks out in breach of a confidentiality clause, or non-disparagement provisions, or otherwise fails to adhere to the terms agreed, there are remedies available.
The other party can take enforcement action, seek penalties or damages, and recover costs as if it were a normal breach of contract.
Typically, the legal and financial implications of breaching an agreement are enough to deter the other party from doing so.
However, enforcing such terms in an employment context is rarely just a legal decision. This is partly because any remedies for such breaches are generally modest.
It is also because attempts to pursue a breach will almost inevitably generate further publicity, risk appearing heavy-handed, and bring renewed attention to the underlying allegations.
In a high-profile case like this, those risks are magnified.
The other significant issue in this case is that Ruddle claims that she never wanted to settle and sign an agreement in the first place.
To succeed in challenging a Record of Settlement on such grounds, a party must establish illegitimate pressure or conduct that undermines the voluntariness of the agreement.
Because settlements are often signed at points of vulnerability, this needs to be something significant. For example, being deprived of a proper opportunity to obtain advice.
The statutory requirement for explanation by a mediator that the agreement will become final, binding and enforceable is designed to mitigate these risks, but it is not an absolute safeguard.
However, if Ruddle were able to successfully prove such grounds, the consequences would be significant.
The underlying personal grievance could potentially be revived, reopening the legal risk that the settlement was intended to extinguish.
Ultimately, this situation shows that employment settlements are both powerful and fragile.
They work when both parties honour the terms, but things can become messy if one party later chooses not to.
When that happens, the law offers remedies, but not necessarily a satisfactory resolution.
Originally published in The Post
