Crozier v Miller-Williams and Knowles v Miller-Williams

In *Crozier v Miller-Williams and Knowles v Miller-Williams*, the applicants, Crozier and Knowles, brought proceedings against the respondent, Miller-Williams, alleging dismissal in contravention of general protections. The primary dispute centred on the credibility of the applicants as witnesses, with the court ultimately finding them to be unreliable. This finding directly impacted their ability to satisfy the conditions for an unfair dismissal claim, including whether they fell within the scope of the relevant award.

The court was required to determine whether the applicants had established a contravention of the general protections provisions and, consequently, whether their dismissals were unfair. A key element of this determination was assessing the veracity of the applicants' evidence regarding the circumstances of their employment and dismissal. The court also considered the respondent's application for costs, specifically whether the tender of Calderbank letters was sufficient to warrant an order for costs against the applicants under section 570(2) of the relevant legislation.

The court's reasoning focused on the applicants' lack of credibility, finding their testimony to be unreliable. This adverse finding meant the applicants failed to meet the necessary conditions to establish their claims. Consequently, the applications were dismissed. Regarding costs, the court determined that the circumstances did not warrant an order for costs against the applicants, despite the tender of Calderbank letters, and therefore made no order as to costs.