Costs - Employment Relations Act 2000
Amey v Komene & Anor
27 Nov 2008, J Crichton, CA 178/08, (5 pages)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Identity of employer - Application to reopen personal grievance - No appearance for respondent - When employment relationship ended, applicant raised personal grievance and notified employer of outstanding wages - Parties reached full and final settlement of matters between them at mediation, with applicant not pursuing personal grievance and respondent paying outstanding wages by instalments - Respondent failed to fully honour settlement agreement - Applicant alleged respondents misrepresented themselves in mediated settlement as limited liability company, Sharvai Enterprises Limited (“S”), when in fact traded as partnership - Authority found appeared was never company incorporated as S - Insofar as operators of S represented had benefits of limited liability operators in breach of Companies Act 1993 - Authority satisfied applicant employed by respondents, not S - Applicant sought to set aside mediated settlement, given breaches by respondents, and reintroduce personal grievance claim - Authority satisfied applicant prevented from doing so by s149(3) Employment Relations Act 2000 - Application dismissed - ARREARS OF WAGES - Applicant still owed outstanding wages and other monies pursuant to mediated settlement - Respondents to pay outstanding wages - PENALTY - Applicant settled rather than pursuing personal grievance claim, facilitating prompt resolution - Respondent flagrantly breached settlement agreement and applicant now prevented from reopening personal grievance - Authority satisfied appropriate case to award penalty - $4,000 penalty awarded, payable to applicant - COSTS - Costs to lie where they fall - Truck driver
Result:
Application dismissed (Reopening of personal grievance) ; Arrears of wages ($1,777.84) ; Application granted (Penalty)($4,000)(payable to applicant) ; Costs to lie where they fall
Bradley v Mons
15 Nov 2007, H Doyle, CA 139/07, (9 pages)
ARREARS OF WAGES AND HOLIDAY PAY - Applicant alleged not paid for work performed - No appearance by respondent - Identity of employer - Business applicant worked for sold - Received letter signed by respondent and her husband as “directors” stating they were new owners - Unclear what company they were directors of - No written employment agreement - Applicant submitted only dealt with respondent - Doctrine of Undisclosed Principal - Applicant employed by respondent - No wages received after business sold - Part payment made after applicant left employment - Arrears due and owing - Late payment caused distress and embarrassment, warranted interest at 9 percent - However, letter from applicant not sufficient to raise personal grievance - COSTS - Applicant in person - Venue of investigation meeting chosen during conference call at request of respondent’s husband - Applicant required to travel to investigation meeting - Authority considered appropriate to reimburse applicant for reasonable expenses - Given unusual circumstances, applicant also able to claim wages lost as result of attending investigation meeting - Cleaner
Result:
Application granted ; Arrears of wages ($99.49 net) Holiday pay ($94.50) ; (Interest)(9%) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($344.30)(Travel expenses) ; ($180)(Lost wages) ; ($70)(Filing fee)
C v D Ltd
20 Nov 2008, J Crichton, CA 140A/08, (4 pages)
COSTS – Successful personal grievance – One and half day investigation meeting - Applicant sought contribution of two thirds of applicant’s actual costs – Parties accepted challenge filed by respondent not to, as matter of law, operate as stay of proceedings, but accepted appropriate for funds to be held in solicitor’s trust account pending disposition of challenge – Authority found usual principles and tariff approach appropriate - Costs of $4,500 in favour of applicant - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Applicant sought to fix quantum of respondent’s contribution to wages – Previous determination directed respondent to pay contribution to applicant’s wages in an amount equivalent to the average gross amount applicant would have earned from date of termination of employment to date of investigation meeting, less any amount earned elsewhere – Authority accepted quantum of applicant’s calculation – Found statue does not preclude finding of lost wages without personal grievance finding of unjustified dismissal – In these particular unusual circumstances, wages became due and owing as direct consequence of disadvantage – Applicant lost access to income as direct result of unjustified actions of respondent - Disadvantage in this case included wage loss - Applicant undertook to hold costs, compensation and lost wages awards in solicitor’s trust account pending disposition of challenge
Result:
RESULT: Costs in favour of applicant ($4,500) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($8,216.50) ; Costs, compensation award and lost wages to be held in trust by applicant’s solicitor
Collins v TMS Medical Ltd
13 Oct 2008, P R Stapp, WA 71A/08, (3 pages)
COSTS - Unsuccessful personal grievance - One day investigation meeting - Respondent sought 2/3rds contribution to total costs of $11,339 plus disbursements - Authority noted respondent made Calderbank offer which was entirely reasonable, however since respondent was successful party calderbank offer not directly applicable - Varied nature of applicant's claim added to time and length of investigation meeting, requiring respondent to cover all angles of claim which should have been more focused putting respondent to unnecessary expense - Costs award to be at upper end of scale - No evidence by applicant to suggest unable to meet payment of award - Respondent entitled to $3,000 contribution to costs - No order for disbursements as they not itemised
Result:
Costs in favour of respodnent ($3,000)
Coup & Anor v MPA Investments Ltd t/a McDonalds Kaiapoi
6 Oct 2008, P Cheyne, CA 130A/08, (5 pages)
COSTS - Successful personal grievance - Three day investigation meeting - Respondent accepted costs should follow event, however should be modest and not used as punishment - Suggested an award of $6,000 apportioned equally between applicants, as appropriate - Applicants' total costs were $18,000 - Argued should have award of 80% of actual costs equally apportioned between them - Respondent caused extra and unnecessary costs by claiming breach of good faith by the union - To establish breach, respondent had to refer to matters directly connected with mediation and without prejudice attempts to resolve problems - Respondent also failed to disclose number amount of relevant documents in advance of investigation meeting - Authority found none of costs related to wasted time should be visited on applicants - Authority considered award at upper end of scale - Respondent to pay $13,500 for applicants' to divide equally between them plus disbursements
Result:
Costs in favour of applicants ($13,500); (Disbursements)($1,013); (Filing Fee)($140)
Davies v Smart Steel Ltd
12 Dec 2007, D Asher, WA 167/07, (7 pages)
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Misconduct - No appearance by respondent - In statement in reply argued applicant dismissed for persistent refusal to carry out instructions - Applicant’s evidence accepted - Unaware respondent had any issues with his behaviour until received dismissal letter - Other allegations raised by respondent unsubstantiated and not of nature to justify lack of fair process - Dismissal unjustified - Arrears of wages, commission and holiday pay also due and owing - COSTS - Length of investigation meeting not specified - Full costs awarded due to respondent’s failure to engage in employment relationship problem resolution process and because sum sought reasonable for matter
Result:
Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($2,764.80) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($10,000) ; Arrears of wages ($3,270.91) ; Holiday pay ($1,132.98) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($2,250) ; Disbursements ($70)(Filing fee)
Gamble v Agresearch Ltd
28 Oct 2008, R Arthur, CA 139A/08, (2 pages)
COSTS - Unsuccessful personal grievance - Length of investigation meeting not specified - Respondent sought $1,000 as reasonable contribution to costs - No submission from applicant - Applicant to pay reasonable contribution of $1,000 to respondent's costs
Result:
Costs in favour of respondent ($1,000)
Heap v Calibre Plastics Ltd
25 Sep 2008, R Arthur, WA 95B/08, (3 pages)
COSTS - Successful personal grievance - Two and a half day investigation meeting - Applicant incurred legal fees of $31,000 plus disbursements and sought $7,500 a day as contribution to costs - Argued respondent obstructed resolution - Respondent no longer trading and claimed had gone into liquidation - Authority found daily tariff approach appropriate - Also found applicant's costs incurred excessive for relatively straight forward matter - Applicant entitled to modest and reasonable contribution of $6,250 plus disbursements to be paid by specified date
Result:
Costs in favour of applicant ($6,250) ; (Disbursements) ($222)
Jefferson v Enduring Sales Ltd
7 Nov 2008, R A Monaghan, AA 332A/08, (2 pages)
COSTS - Successful personal grievance - ½ day investigation meeting - Applicant sought filing fee and $350 costs - Authority found costs usually ordered by way of contribution to costs of representation incurred by successful party and since applicant represented himself no reason why applicant would be entitled to extra payment of $350 - Applicant entitled to $70 as contribution to filing fee
Result:
Costs in favour of applicant ($70) (Filing Fee)
Johnson v The Travel Practice Ltd
10 Oct 2008, J Crichton, CA 59A/08, (4 pages)
COSTS - Successful personal grievance - Less than half day investigation meeting - Applicant sought contribution of $4,000 to costs - Submission's filed by applicant outlined respondent's unreasonable and unhelpful behaviour, that contributed to applicant's costs - Authority satisfied applicant put to significant additional cost as consequence of various defaults by respondent - Appropriate costs award for applicant in this matter was $4,500
Result:
Costs in favour of applicant ($4,500)
Kainuku v Ferguson t/a Man About the House
25 Sep 2008, V Campbell, WA 62A/08, (2 pages)
COSTS - Successful personal grievance - One day investigation meeting - Applicant sought full costs of $1,870 - Matter not complex and costs incurred reasonable given preparation required and length of hearing - Applicant entitled to contribution to costs
Result:
Costs in favour of applicant ($750)
Kirk v Tregoweath and Ors
1 Oct 2008, J Scott, AA 346/08, (6 pages)
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Serious misconduct – Summary dismissal - No appearance by respondents – Applicant claimed respondent offered day manager position with specific hours at new restaurant - At staff meeting held day before restaurant opened, applicant discovered another employee given duty manager position – Applicant commenced work regardless as sole income earner in household - Rostered hours were variable and differed from original verbal agreement - No written employment agreement – Applicant raised matter of hours several times – In heated discussion, respondent said applicant could leave if not happy – Later same day, night manager told applicant that respondents not happy with applicant and applicant to only work nights - Applicant called to meeting where respondent alleged applicant complaining about respondents to their previous colleagues – Respondent dismissed applicant for serious misconduct – Authority found respondent should have addressed applicant’s concerns over work hours in good faith with view to resolve issue – Respondents did not follow fair process to conclude serious misconduct justifying dismissal - Dismissal unjustified – Remedies – No contributory conduct – One week’s notice period reasonable – Interest payable on wages for notice period – Applicant found new employment after five weeks – Four weeks reimbursement of lost wages appropriate –Compensation appropriate for arbitrary unjustified dismissal – COSTS – Applicant awarded $1,070 for costs - Waitress
Result:
Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($1,893.12) ; Wages in lieu of notice ($473.28)(Interest 9%) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,500) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($1,070)
Lelieveld v Tir Na Nog Enterprises Ltd
16 Oct 2008, J Scott, AA 331A/08, (3 pages)
COSTS - Successful personal grievance - Less than one day investigation meeting - Applicant incurred costs of $3,603, including mediation costs - Matter relatively straightforward - Applicant entitled to costs incurred relating to Authority investigation meeting but not mediation
Result:
Costs in favour of applicant ($1,570)
Lupi v We Want You Motor Group Ltd
10 Oct 2008, D King, AA 351/08, (2 pages)
COSTS - Unsuccessful personal grievance - Length of investigation meeting not specified - Respondent sought costs of $2,500 from total costs of $5,500 - Applicant argued should not be liable for any of respondent's costs and had not incurred costs himself - Authority found applicant partially successful in claim therefore not prepared to make award for costs
Result:
No award for costs
Mardell v Edwards Dunlop (NZ) Ltd t/a BJ Ball Papers
9 Oct 2008, D King, AA 147A/08, (2 pages)
COSTS - Unsuccessful personal grievance - Less than one day investigation meeting - Respondent sought full costs of $7,750 - Claimed applicant's behaviour, should result in reimbursement of full costs - Applicant argued award of more than $2,000 would cause financial hardship as applicant a student with only part time employment - Applicant's behaviour resulted in finding against applicant - Behaviour not to be used to penalise applicant again in costs setting - Not complex legal matter, no reason to depart from normal costs award - Respondent entitled to reasonable contribution to costs as successful party - Due to lack of specifity no disbursements to be awarded - Authority also noted comments made in an email by respondent to applicant, deemed to be in breach of concept of good faith and totally inappropriate
Result:
Cost in favour of respondent ($2,000)
Melrose v Weka Group Ltd t/a The Vulcan
25 Nov 2008, D King, AA 403/08, (4 pages)
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed discriminated against by reason of pregnancy – No appearance by respondent – After seven months employment with respondent, applicant discovered was pregnant – Applicant mentioned pregnancy to respondent – Applicant told demoted to Assistant General Manager and new employee to be General Manager – Respondent told applicant that was underpaid for one shift as took time off during prior shift to visit midwife – Applicant given verbal warning for incorrectly filling in timesheet – Applicant protested warning, arguing had not filled in time sheet as day was statutory holiday – Respondent called meeting with applicant, refusing to say what meeting about – Applicant’s partner attended – At start of meeting, respondent stated meeting had two possible outcomes: resign or be dismissed - Applicant shown video footage of applicant leaving workplace before time on timesheet – Respondent made further allegations of incorrect entries, without providing details or opportunity to view other footage – Applicant refused to resign – Applicant received dismissal letter – Authority found no opportunity to respond to allegations and not provided with all relevant information – Authority satisfied dismissal was because of pregnancy – Applicant not consulted regarding demotion – Dismissal and disadvantage unjustified – Remedies – Applicant entitled to one month’s wages for notice period stipulated in employment agreement – Applicant entitled to reimbursement of lost wages until date maternity leave would have commenced – Global compensation for humiliation and distress appropriate – PARENTAL LEAVE – Applicant claimed compensation for loss of parental leave payment – Authority found parental leave payment not benefit that can be compensated under s123(1)(c)(ii) Employment Relations Act 2000 – COSTS – Authority satisfied $2,000 contribution to costs sought by applicant reasonable - $2,000 costs awarded – General Manager
Result:
Applications granted (dismissal and disadvantage) ; Reimbursement of lost wages (23 weeks)($20,788.66) ; One month’s wages in lieu of notice ($3,916.66) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($9,000) ; Application dismissed (parental leave) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($2,000) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)(filing fee)
Neil v Lammas & Anor
30 Oct 2008, J Scott, AA 345A/08, (3 pages)
COSTS - Successful personal grievance - Two half day investigation meetings - Applicant sought contribution of $2,000 plus disbursements to total costs of $3,930 - Respondent did not attend either investigation meetings nor did they contact Authority to advise they would not be attending - Costs must follow event - Applicant's claim reasonable, therefore entitled to contribution to costs and disbursements of $2,338
Result:
Costs in favour of applicant ($2,000); Disbursements ($338.20)
Nelio v New Zealand Institute of Fashion Technology Ltd
30 Oct 2008, R Arthur, AA 371/08, (8 pages)
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Respondent cancelled applicant’s employment agreement claiming applicant misrepresented qualifications - Applicant denied misleading respondent and claimed unjustifiably dismissed - Applicant had number of Romanian qualifications including “Diploma of Tailor” from Romanian university - Shortly after applicant started, respondent began to have concerns about applicant’s level of experience and ability - Respondent’s Managing Director questioned applicant about content of “Diploma of Tailor” - Respondent then sent applicant letter requesting meeting to discuss whether qualification had been misrepresented and possible cancellation of employment - Meeting was first time respondent had seen “Diploma of Tailor” - No evidence respondent put to applicant skills and level of qualifications required before employed her - Found respondent could not rely on clause in employment agreement to require applicant to have explained qualification more thoroughly - Respondent should have more thoroughly considered alternatives to termination - Found applicant did not misrepresent qualifications - Rather respondent made assumptions and failed to ask relevant questions during interview process - Respondent did not act as a fair and reasonable employer – Dismissal unjustified - Remedies - Applicant failed to sufficiently mitigate loss - Award of two months lost wages appropriate - Dismissal damaged applicant’s confidence and caused embarrassment and emotional distress - Award of $5,000 compensation appropriate - COSTS - Both parties indicated any costs should be awarded using tariff based approach - On that basis respondent to pay applicant $2,000 as reasonable contribution to costs - Fashion Design Tutor
Result:
Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages (Two months) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Costs in favour of the applicant ($2,000) ; Disbursements in favour of the applicant ($70)(Filing fee)
NZ Tramways & Public Passenger Transport Authorities Employees IOUW (Wellington Branch) v Cityline (new Zealand) Ltd t/a Cityline Hutt Valley & Anor
2 Oct 2008, D Asher, WA 38A/08, (4 pages)
COSTS - Successful practice and procedure case - Investigation meeting less than half a day - Applicant sought costs of $3,000 in respect of preliminary matters heard in 2007 from total costs of $4,120 - Applicant argued matters raised involved novel questions of law that necessitated additional research - Respondent lost their argument in Employment Court and therefore put applicant to unnecessary expense - Respondent argued matter was a test case and issue was a point of law - Submitted parties agreed costs would lie where they fell in respect of substantive application and costs incurred by applicant not clear - Suggested costs lie where they fell or regarding size of applicant's submission and time taken be no more than $750 in regards to preliminary matter - Authority found matter not a test case and no reason why costs should not follow event - Applicant entitled to appropriate contribution to costs of $1,000
Result:
Costs in favour of applicant ($1,000)
Postal Workers Association v New Zealand Post
26 Sep 2008, R Arthur, AA 338/08, (3 pages)
COSTS - Unsuccessful dispute - Length of investigation meeting not specified - Respondent sought costs - Applicant did not lodge reply - Authority declined to award costs to respondent as application well outside timetable for costs set by determination issued 11 months ago - Also case was type of matter where costs would normally lie where they fall - Found applicants had genuine and deeply felt views on how term of employment agreement should be interpreted and applied - Therefore Authority found costs to lie where they fall
Result:
Costs to lie where they fall
Reitzema v ELP Payroll Hioldings Ltd
28 Oct 2008, R Arthur, AA 300A/08, (2 pages)
COSTS - Unsuccessful personal grievance - One day investigation meeting - Respondent sought actual costs of $15,670 including disbursements - Submitted total costs warranted as applicant had refused 'without prejudice' offer as well as misleading employers resulting in dismissal - Authority not convinced applicant should be liable for respondent's full costs as award would be well above usual modest level of costs, investigation meeting was lengthened by dealing with evidence on 'make weight' issue, and finally because applicant had limited means which by awarding full costs would be unduly burdensome - Respondent entitled to reasonable contribution to costs
Result:
Costs in favour of respondent ($3,500)
Riddell v Mahuika-Forsyth & Anor
13 Nov 2007, H Doyle, CA 138/07, (10 pages)
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Redundancy - No appearance by respondents - Respondents submitted applicant initially employed by them, but subsequently became partner in business - Applicant accepted management position and provided with accommodation, valued by Authority at $150 per week - Discussion between parties about applicant receiving portion of gross earnings - Applicant did not accept he became profit-sharing partner - Did not provide capital and had no say in how business run - Relationship did not change from one of employment - Applicant told business to be shut down and became concerned about receiving payment for work already performed as had not been receiving weekly wage - When applicant asked for pay respondent accused him of being drunk and a thief and told him to leave - Evidence did not support these allegations - Business did cease to operate, but any redundancy process inadequate and unfair - Dismissal unjustified - Arrears due and owing - COSTS - Length of investigation meeting not specified - Applicant and representative flew in from out of town as location of investigation meeting insisted on by respondent - Given unusual circumstances, airfares treated as expense claimable by applicant - Bar manager
Result:
Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages and benefits ($4,260)(notice) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($10,000) ; Arrears of wages and holiday pay ($5,239.40) ; Costs in favour of applicant ($1,000) ; Disbursements ($732)(airfares)
Roberts v Commissioner of New Zealand Police
5 Nov 2008, R A Monaghan, AT 1A/08, (9 pages)
COSTS – Unsuccessful personal grievance – Four day investigation meeting – Respondent argued appropriate approach was to consider what amounted to reasonable contribution to costs actually and reasonably incurred – Applicant argued costs should lie where they fall or be nominal, in light of “very special circumstances” of case and Employment Tribunal’s equity and good conscience jurisdiction - Respondent cited actual costs of $57,262.22 and disbursements of $3,351.78 – Costs arising from preliminary issues settled by agreement – Tribunal found appropriate for parties to bear own costs in respect of matters arising from judgment of Supreme Court in Creedy v Commissioner of Police [2008] ERNZ 109 – Found applicant did not take appropriate account of clear advice at early stage regarding chances of success – Found Employment Court judgment permitting applicant to proceed with claim, referring substantive matter to Employment Tribunal, did not comment on merits of claim – Applicant argued respondent called excessive witnesses and retained unnecessary multiple counsel – Tribunal found argument unfounded - Case for respondent thoroughly and competently argued – Found respondent’s costs reasonably incurred – Tribunal awarded approximately two thirds of actual costs, less costs for strike out application and post-hearing exchanges between parties – Found matters complicated by limit imposed by operation of legal system on ability to address applicant’s only meritorious argument, so Tribunal did not increase amount of contribution where may otherwise have done so – Tribunal not addressed on applicant’s ability to pay, beyond broad statement unsupported by evidence – No basis on which Tribunal to reduce amount of applicant’s contribution with reference to ability to pay – Tribunal not addressed in detail on disbursements – In circumstances, no further order for disbursements
Result:
Costs in favour of respondent ($27,000)
Scott v Gorrie Fuels (SI) Ltd
21 Oct 2008, P Cheyne, CA 138A/08, (2 pages)
COSTS - Successful personal grievance - Length of investigation meeting not specified - Applicant sought costs, however did not incur legal fees as represented himself - Claimed expenses but no receipts provided therefore no award made - Claimed application fee - Respondent argued should not have to pay lodgement fee because of finding of contribution - Authority found lodgement fee related to arrears claim and therefore applicant entitled to claim it back
Result:
Costs in favour of applicant ($70)(Filing Fee)
Strickland v Ferguson t/a Man About the House
25 Sep 2008, V Campbell, WA 61A/08, (2 pages)
COSTS - Successful personal grievance - One day investigation meeting - Applicant sought full costs of $1,870 - Matter not complex and costs incurred reasonable given preparation required and length of hearing - Applicant entitled to contribution to costs
Result:
Costs in favour of applicant ($750)
Thomas v Walkinshaw & Anor
15 Oct 2008, R Arthur, AA 310A/08, (9 pages)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Identity of employer – First respondent sole shareholder and director of second respondent – First respondent argued employment relationship was between applicant and second respondent – No written employment agreement – Business invoices referred to “Bike 360,” not second respondent – Applicant did not receive payslips or pay cheques while employed so not aware second respondent identified on those – First respondent’s email address referred to second respondent, but did not state it was limited liability company – Applicant not aware “Bike 360” was trading name of second respondent – Found first respondent’s intention that second respondent was employer, and identity of second respondent, not communicated to applicant – Second respondent was undisclosed principal at time first respondent employed applicant – First respondent did not discharge onus to identify principal to applicant, so applicant entitled to pursue first respondent personally - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Tension in employment relationship due to incidents relating to applicant’s absence from work and applicant not been paid – After heated discussion, first respondent told applicant to “finish up” as was no longer needed – Authority found communication broke down, but issues did not justify summary dismissal – First respondent argued agreed before employment began that if employment unsuccessful, parties would just shake hands and move on – Authority found arrangement could not preclude basic employment right to have problems addressed in good faith before either party took unilateral steps to terminate employment – Dismissal unjustified – Remedies – Shop closed four weeks after dismissal, so only four weeks lost wages appropriate – Compensation for humiliation and injury to feelings appropriate as applicant devastated by sudden dismissal and embarrassed when knowledge of dismissal from bike shop emerged in cycling circles – Ten percent contributory conduct appropriate due to applicant’s inadequate communication and provocative comments to other staff about pay – ARREARS OF WAGES – After mediation, applicant paid for 84 hours work – Applicant claimed owed 12 more hours wages – In absence of time and wage records, Authority accepted applicant entitled to further wages and holiday pay – Interest at nine percent from date of dismissal – COSTS – Applicant not entitled to costs for legal advice relating to preparation for and attendance at mediation – Applicant entitled to lodgement fee – Other costs reserved – Bike shop sales assistant
Result:
Application granted (dismissal) ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($2,754) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($2,250) ; Arrears of wages and holiday pay ($220.32) ; Interest on arrears ($28.41) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($70)(filing fee) ; Costs reserved
Tian v Hollywood Bakery (Holdings) Ltd
2 Oct 2008, L Robinson, AA 161B/08, (2 pages)
COSTS - Partially successful personal grievance - Three half day investigation meetings - Respondent sought indemnity costs of $5,770 as applicant unreasonably rejected offer by respondent for full sum in dispute - Applicant argued due to financial circumstances not able to pay costs as sought - Authority, in circumstances, found fair and reasonable that costs be left to lie where they all
Result:
Costs to lie where they fall
Tuari v Sims Pacific Metals Ltd
14 Oct 2008, P Cheyne, CA 152/08, (3 pages)
COSTS - Unsuccessful personal grievance - Three day investigation meeting - Respondent sought $12,000 as contribution to costs - Submitted applicant's claims were contrived and conniving - Proceedings dealt with separate but related cases adding unnecessary time to respondent's costs, therefore Authority treated matter as two and a half day investigation meeting for purposes of assessing costs - Respondent as successful party entitled to costs assessed on daily tariff basis plus expenses
Result:
Costs in favour of respondent ($5,000) ; (Disbursements)($1,500)
A v B
30 Sep 2008, Y S Oldfield, AA 273A/08, (2 pages)
COSTS - Successful personal grievance - Two day investigation meeting - Applicant sought full indemnity costs of $12,127 plus disbursements or at least a substantial contribution to costs - Respondent accepted expected to make contribution to applicant's costs but claimed nothing in matter warranted order for costs outside of usual principles of costs awards - Authority found case not legally or factually complex with nothing to indicate need for departure form usual approach to costs - Applicant entitled to reasonable contribution to costs plus disbursements
Result:
Costs in favour or applicant ($6,000)
A v B and C
30 Sep 2008, M Urlich, AA 248A/08, (4 pages)
COSTS - Successful personal grievance - Three day investigation meeting - Applicant sought indemnity costs of $32,629 - Argued indemnification of costs warranted given conduct of respondents was reckless, breached timetabling orders, witness statement contained irrelevant hearsay, conduct of respondents was inappropriate during hearing focussing on applicant's alleged sexual conduct and appearance as well as being disrespectful and acting in an insulting manner - Respondents submitted case did not warrant indemnity costs - Submitted time spent and costs incurred were excessive given legally uncomplicated investigation - Nothing exceptional about matter - Authority found case did not warrant indemnity costs and costs incurred too high given type of case and length of hearing - Applicant was successful party and therefore entitled to reasonable contribution to costs and disbursements
Result:
Costs in favour of applicant ($9,000) ; Disbursements ($232.50)
Whitney & Ors v New Zealand Post Ltd
23 Oct 2008, L Robinson, AA 335A/08, (2 pages)
COSTS - Successful dispute in favour of applicant - ½ day investigation meeting - Applicant sought costs of $1,482 - Respondent argued parties had not attempted to resolve question of costs between them and matter was test case to interpret previously untested clause, therefore costs should be left where they fall - Authority agreed matter was test case to clarify dispute of rights between parties - Fair and reasonable for costs to lie where they fall
Result:
Costs to lie where they fall
