| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 532 |
| Determination date | 15 December 2011 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | S Austin ; J Humphrey |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Merito and Ors v Te Runanga O Ngati Awa t/a Ngati Awa Tertiary Training Organisation Trust |
| Other Parties | Merito, Peka, Snell |
| Summary | COSTS – Unsuccessful and successful personal grievances, unsuccessful recovery of monies claims and unsuccessful identity of employer claim – Three day investigation meeting – First applicant claimed costs should lie where they fall – Second applicant sought $4,182 contribution to costs – Third applicant sought $4,054 contribution to costs – Fourth applicant sought $4,054 contribution to costs – First respondent sought contribution to $4,377 total costs – Second respondent sought contribution to $11,907 total costs – Respondents made Calderbank offer after investigation meeting – Authority did not take Calderbank offer into account because at time offer made substantial majority of all parties’ costs had been incurred – Found substance of matter relatively straightforward and alternative approach to costs not required – Found identity of employer claim wholly unsuccessful which should reduce cost award – Found recovery of monies claims unsuccessful but did not warrant reduction to costs award – Found substantial proportion of evidence relevant to first applicant’s unsuccessful grievance relevant to three other grievances – Second respondent to pay $2,833.33 each to second, third and fourth applicants – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to recall determination – Respondents claimed miscalculation of loss owed to second applicant in determination – Applicants claimed request should be declined because not properly raised, would be opposed, made after time limit on filing challenge to determination had passed, not raised in timely way and respondents could have challenged determination but did not do so – Found as error was essentially arithmetic and could readily be identified from reading determination was best addressed by recall and re-issue of determination – Found procedure available for seeking leave to challenge out of time and so point did not count against recalling determination – Determination to be recalled and reissued with correction |
| Result | Costs in favour of second applicant ($2,833.33) ; Costs in favour of third applicant ($2,833.33) ; Costs in favour of fourth applicant ($2,833.33) ; Disbursements in favour of second applicant ($71.56)(filing fee) ; Disbursements in favour of third applicant ($71.56)(filing fee) ; Disbursements in favour of fourth applicant ($71.56)(filing fee) ; Application granted (recall determination) |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Cases Cited | Gilbert v Attorney-General [2006] ERNZ 1;Muldoon v Nelson Marlborough District Health Board [2011] NZEmpC 115;PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Securities Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] ERNZ 808;Trotter v Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Ltd [1993] 2 ERNZ 935 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_532.pdf [pdf 35 KB] |