Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
Barnett v Brooklyn Holdings Ltd & Ors
22 Nov 2007, PR Stapp, WA 138A/07, (3 pages)
COSTS - Unsuccessful personal grievance - Two day investigation meeting - Respondents sought contribution to total costs of $13,186 - Argued Calderbank offer made and rejected - Applicant argued only modest award should be granted as had a strong case - Respondents put to expense of investigation - Applicant to contribute 66% of respondent’s total costs - Respondent awarded $3,029 as contribution to costs
Result: Cost in favour of applicant ($3,029.40)
Cadman v Napier Girls High School Board of Trustees
30 Oct 2007, PR Stapp, WA 119A/07, (3 pages)
CCOSTS - Applicant not an employee - 1 ½ day investigation meeting - Respondent sought contribution of $8,100 to total costs of $36,949 - Meeting took longer than necessary because of failure to provide replies in writing, prior to investigation meeting and because of new allegations made by applicant - Applicant had important issue of principle to be tested - However had to accept desire came with cost - Contribution to costs based on 60% of reasonable costs - Decision on disbursements reserved for detail to be provided
Result: Costs in favour of respondent ($4,860)
Dahl v Knight train Haulage Ltd
26 Oct 2007, R Arthur, AA 278A/07, (3 pages)
COSTS - Successful personal grievance - One day investigation meeting - Applicant sought contribution of $3,270 to total costs of $4,770 - Respondent submitted Calderbank offer made prior to investigation rejected and suggested costs should lie where they fall - Offer less than result ultimately achieved by applicant - Unhelpful conduct of respondent regarding mediation taken into account - Under tariff approach case would normally warrant award of $1,500 - Increased to $2,000 to recognise respondent's conduct
Result: Costs in favour of applicant ($2,000)
Dams v Powerbeat International Ltd
9 Nov 2007, A Dumbleton, AA 256A/07, (4 pages)
COSTS - Successful personal grievance - Two day investigation meeting - Applicant sought contribution to total costs of $5,568 - Applicant's costs very modest in circumstances - Notional rate to calculate costs would not do justice to work - Authority had regard to applicant's total success and lack of contribution - Total cost of investigation meeting did not take into account considerable activity that occurred outside investigation meeting - Application of notional rate to hearing time would not do justice to work involved in case for applicant's counsel - Applicant entitled to reasonable contribution to costs and disbursements
Result: Costs in favour of applicant ($4,350)(including disbursements)
Drayton Transport Ltd v Stocker
18 Oct 2007, J Crichton, CA 103A/07, (2 pages)
COSTS - Successful recovery of monies - Length of investigation meeting not specified - Applicant sought full costs of $956.25 and submitted costs should follow event because case was relatively unusual as respondent chose to defend entirely unmeritorious claim - Respondent to pay significant contribution to costs
Result: Costs in favour of applicant ($836.72)
Feguson v Pump and Water Solutions Ltd
11 Jul 2007, V Campbell, AA 207/07, (3 pages)
COMPLIANCE ORDER - Applicant sought compliance with mediated record of settlement - Respondent claimed not in financial position to pay full amount due - Important Authority send clear signal mediated terms of settlement must be honoured - Compliance order appropriate - Authority satisfied financial position of respondent required order for payment by instalments - COSTS - Applicant's costs not necessary if respondent had honoured settlement agreement - Awarded $250 contribution to costs
Result: Compliance ordered ; Orders accordingly ; Costs in favour of applicant ($250) ; Disbursements ($70)(Filing fee)
Ford v General Storage Ltd
25 Oct 2007, R Arthur, AA 277A/07, (2 pages)
COSTS - Successful personal grievance - One day investigation meeting - Applicant sought contribution to costs of $2,500, claimed amount sought significantly less than actual costs - Respondent made no submissions regarding costs - Matter dealt with efficiently in single day - Necessarily incurred costs closer to lower end of tariff scale - Reasonable contribution awarded to applicant
Result: Costs in favour of applicant ($1,800)
Forsyth v Telstraclear Ltd
1 Nov 2007, L Robinson, AA 320A/07, (3 pages)
COSTS - Unsuccessful dispute - One day investigation meeting - Respondent sought contribution of $7,725 to total costs of $13,440 - Applicant submitted award should be modest as facts came within narrow compass - Notional reasonable costs calculated as $5,000 - Applicant to pay contribution to costs
Result: Costs in favour of respondent ($3,000)(including disbursements)
Hardgrave v Customkit Buildings Ltd
23 Jul 2007, R A Monaghan, AA 135A/07, (3 pages)
COSTS - Successful personal grievance - Three day investigation meeting - Applicant sought contribution of $10,500 to costs - Calderbank offer was rejected as offer included costs reducing benefit compared to remedies awarded by Authority - Respondent argued applicant's contribution, Calderbank offer and withdrawal of counter-claim should be taken into account - Since applicant not entirely successful in claim, reduction applied to costs awarded - Applicant also sought reimbursement of medical expenses which was dismissed - Entitled to contribution to costs of $9,000
Result: Costs in favour of applicant ($9,000); Filing Fee($70)
Heremia v Wilding International Ltd
18 Oct 2007, V Campbell, AA 237A/07, (2 pages)
COSTS - Successful personal grievance - One day investigation meeting - Applicant was legally aided - Sought between $4,000 and $5,000 as contribution to costs - No evidence produced to show what legal aid grant or actual costs were - Not overly complex case, however large amount of documentation provided by respondent - Applicant awarded reasonable contribution to costs
Result: Costs in favour of applicant ($3,000)(including disbursements)
Hollands v Jam Marketing Pty Ltd
31 Jul 2007, D King, AA 179A/07, (3 pages)
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Poor performance - No appearance for respondent - No written employment agreement - Earlier determination found applicant an employee - Matter determined on applicant's uncontested evidece - Applicant employed to sell timeshare properties on salary plus commission basis - Within two months told was being let go because was “a round peg in a square hole” - Not given any indication employment at risk or opportunity to comment - Manner dismissal affected "brutal" - Decision predetermined - Dismissal unjustified - PENALTY - Respondent intended to provide employment agreement but failed to do so - Penalty appropriate - COSTS - Applicant entitled to costs - Applicant to forward details of expenditure incurred to Authority
Result: Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($5,000)(10 weeks) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($8,000) ; Penalty ($3,000)(Payable to Crown)
Jeffries v Adis International Ltd
15 May 2007, Traivs, J, AC 24/07, (1 pages)
DE NOVO CHALLENGE TO DETERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY – Plaintiff challenged Authority’s costs award of $3,000 against plaintiff – COSTS – Unsuccessful de novo challenge (see: AC 69/06) – Defendant sought reasonable contribution of $30,000 to actual costs of $76,246 – HELD – Plaintiff made case unnecessarily complex – Authority’s award well within scope of its discretion – Challenged dismissed – Award of $30,000 would be modest contribution – However, solely because of plaintiff’s financial circumstances, Court ordered her to pay $20,000 towards defendant’s costs – Authority award confirmed – Costs in favour of defendant ($20,000)
Result: Challenge dismissed ; Costs in favour of defendant ($20,000)
Keehan v Cedric and Emma Monk t/a CJ & E Monk and R.E.M. Farms Ltd
19 Oct 2007, H Doyle, CA 122/07, (4 pages)
COSTS - Applicant discontinued personal grievance proceedings - Submitted costs to lie where they fall as not in financial position to continue claim - Respondent submitted award of costs should be $1,000 - Respondent put to considerable expense by having to lodge affidavits for interim application for reinstatement as well as corresponding with Authority even though case withdrawn - Respondent entitled to reasonable contribution to costs
Result: Costs in favour of respondent ($500)
Kurene and Anor v United Group Rail (NZ) Ltd
2 Nov 2007, D Asher, WA 21B/07, (6 pages)
COSTS - Successful personal grievance - Two investigations spread over three days - Applicant sought full costs of $49,667 plus disbursements - Respondent agreed to interim reinstatement and that applicant had personal grievance - Concessions came after applicant had occurred almost all of her costs and could not justify any reward - Realistic settlement proposals advanced by applicants - Costs incurred reflected applicants' "belts and braces" approach to investigations - Full costs not warranted but applicants to recover all fair and reasonable costs - Reasonable costs calculated with reference to legal aid rate - Margin added to recognise greater costs resulting from urgent interim application and complexities of substantive investigation - Applicants to determine how costs awarded to be allocated between them
Result: Costs in favour of applicants ($12,000) ; Disbursements ($1,084.74)
MacKenzie v Ogilvy New Zealand Ltd t/a Advertising Works Ogilvy Ltd
1 Nov 2007, M Urlich, AA 346/07, (3 pages)
COSTS - Successful personal grievance - Less than one day investigation meeting - Applicant sought contribution of $2026 to total costs of $3,070 - Submitted matter could have been settled earlier had respondent made offer - Respondent argued applicant's claim had limited success and $500 would be appropriate award for costs due to applicant's contribution - Authority noted contribution reflected in level of remedies awarded - Little factual disagreement between parties - Applicant entitled to contribution to costs
Result: Costs in favour of applicant ($2,000) ; Filing fee ($70)
Nelson v Hickory Bay Ltd
24 May 2007, J Crichton, CA 38A/07, (3 pages)
COSTS - Partially successful arrears claim - Length of investigation meeting not specified - Applicant appeared for himself but engaged counsel to prepare closing submissions - Sought contribution to actual costs of $1,165 - Respondent sought $900 disbursements for travel costs required for director to appear at investigation meeting - Both parties could reasonably be considered successful - Authority disposed to think greater onus on employer party rather than employee to follow up matters and successfully resolve disputes - Applicant's argument entitled to additional salary payments had no merit - Both parties to share blame for inability to resolve matters - On daily tariff approach costs award would probably be less than $1,000 - Costs to lie where they fall
Result: Costs to lie where they fall
Ng v Whitireia Community Polytechnic
29 Oct 2007, R Arthur, AA 242A/07, (4 pages)
COSTS - Unsuccessful personal grievance - Less than one day investigation meeting - Respondent sought contribution of $2,500 to total costs of $10,000 - Applicant submitted any costs awarded against her should be no more than $250 - Provided information of income and claimed had only uncertain casual work - Also suggested respondent's conduct not blameless - Award within usual daily range appropriate - Payments to be made by instalments
Result: Costs in favour of respondent ($1,500)
Panel Holdings Ltd v Paki
24 Oct 2007, D King, AA 335/07, (3 pages)
COMPLIANCE ORDER - Applicant sought compliance with two previous Authority determinations - No appearance by respondent - Compliance ordered - COSTS - Applicant sought costs associated with compliance application of $1,582 - Put to unnecessary cost and trouble to file compliance application - Applicant entitled to reasonable contribution to costs
Result: Compliance ordered ; Costs in favour of applicant ($1000); Disbursements ($70)(Filing Fee)
Rillstone v Product Sourcing International 2000 Ltd
25 Oct 2007, R Arthur, AA 167A/07, (6 pages)
COSTS - Successful personal grievance - One day investigation meeting - Applicant sought contribution of $24,585 to full costs of $37,251 - Calderbank offer of $32,000 declined by respondent - Respondent argued Calderbank should not be considered as more than award to applicant as after tax - Disputed matter complex, submitted applicant's costs excessive - Authority took into account Calderbank offer, unnecessary costs incurred by applicant and issues resulting from witness statements - Reasonable costs calculated as $4,000 and $500 allowed for procedural issue
Result: Costs in favour of applicant ($4,500) ; Disbursements ($370)
Shone v Gisborne Intermediate School Board of Trustees
20 Nov 2007, R Arthur, AA 294A/07, (3 pages)
COSTS - Unsuccessful injunction application - Half day investigation meeting - Applicant sought costs of $2,000 plus expenses of $521 - Respondent argued costs should lie where they fall - Submitted applicant did not succeed in obtaining injunction, matter was test case and respondent acted in good faith - Applicant entitled to costs award of $1,200 given nature of case and preparation involved - Costs for out of town counsel allowed due to special venue arrangements
Result: Costs in favour of applicant ($1,756)(including disbursements)
Tayler & Ors v Office Max New Zealand Ltd
18 Oct 2007, J Crichton, CA 97A/07, (4 pages)
COSTS - Successful personal grievances - Two day investigation meeting - Total of 11 applicants sought award of $2,500 to $3,000 per day per applicant - Respondent proposed contribution of $6,000 total to costs incurred by applicants - Both parties questioned need for investigation meeting and considered factual matrix confined - Matter less complex as applicants' evidence very similar - Costs award of magnitude sought by applicants considered quite extraordinary as no evidence matters in contention so complex or out of the ordinary uniquely high award required - Authority made decision to hear evidence in investigation meeting rather than decide case on papers in order to ascertain whether applicants' had colluded in their evidence - Not a case that justified extraordinary costs award - No documentation or evidence provided by applicants identifying costs - Respondent's starting point reasonable but adjusted to take into account additional complexity of group action - Applicants awarded global contribution to costs
Result: Costs in favour of applicants ($8,000)
Williams v Waikato Flying School Ltd
26 Oct 2007, D King, AA 336/07, (2 pages)
COMPLIANCE ORDER - Applicant sought compliance with settlement agreement - No appearance by respondent - Applicant had not received total sum owed under agreement - Compliance ordered - COSTS - Applicant awarded contribution to costs
Result: Compliance Ordered ; Costs in favour of applicant ($500) ; Disbursements ($70)(Filing fee)
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
