| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 21 |
| Determination date | 18 January 2012 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Hutton and Ors v ProvencoCadmus Ltd (in receivership) and Ors |
| Other Parties | 113 others ; Provenco Payments Ltd, Provenco Retail Automation Ltd, Provenco Solutions Ltd, Provenco Technology Ltd (all in receivership) |
| Summary | COSTS – Unsuccessful identity of employer claim – Three day investigation meeting – Respondents sought $18,000 contribution to over $100,000 total costs – Applicants claimed no justification for award of increased costs above usual tariff – Applicants claimed $7,500 contribution to costs appropriate – Authority found not necessary to assess reasonableness of respondents’ legal costs as contribution sought only one-fifth of total costs – Found total costs indicated lack of focus and direction in way claims initially formulated – Found respondents unnecessarily put to extra costs due to direction Authority and respondents initially asked to go in – Found applicants not entirely without success – Found multiple applicants would only have to contribute small amount each to costs award so no disincentive to resolving disputes by access to Authority - $15,000 contribution to costs appropriate |
| Result | Costs in favour of respondents ($15,000) |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Statutes | ERA Second Schedule cl15 |
| Cases Cited | PBO Ltd v Da Cruz [2005] ERNZ 808 |
| Number of Pages | 3 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_21.pdf [pdf 14 KB] |