| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 87 |
| Determination date | 08 March 2012 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Representation | R Lee ; J Douglas, A Russell, K Evans, D Mes, D Gee, M Quigg, G Service, A Galbraith, G Burt |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Aarts v Barnados New Zealand and Ors |
| Other Parties | Commissioner of New Zealand Police, Ministry of Social Development, the Privacy Commissioner, the Ombudsman, the Serious Fraud Office, the Director of Human Rights Proceedings, the Independent Police Conduct Authority, Lance Lawson Barristers and Solicitors |
| Summary | COSTS – Unsuccessful practice and procedure claims – Matter determined on papers – Second respondent (“Police”) sought $2,500 contribution towards costs – Third and sixth respondents (“MSD”) sought $2,500 contribution towards costs - Police and MSD claimed although matter determined on papers, tariff basis appropriate as applicant pursued case in unreasonable manner and lengthy pleadings covered issues over number of years – Eighth respondent (“Director of Human Rights Proceedings”) claimed $5,800 contribution towards costs appropriate as wholly successful and reviewed many documents from applicant – Applicant claimed costs award inappropriate as Police and Director of Human Rights Proceedings tax-payer funded agencies - Applicant claimed unable to meet costs award due to financial situation – Authority found appropriate that costs awarded on tariff basis – Found if matter had not been determined on papers, two day investigation meeting likely – Found due to circumstances appropriate to award costs as if had been one day investigation meeting – Found costs award based on tariff basis would cause applicant some financial hardship – Found number of documents applicant sent unnecessarily increased respondents’ costs – Applicant to pay Police, MSD and Director of Human Rights Proceedings each $1,500 contribution towards costs |
| Result | Costs in favour of second respondent ($1,500) ; Costs in favour of third and sixth respondents ($1,500) ; Costs in favour of eighth respondent ($1,500) ; Disbursements in favour of second respondent ($254.94) ; Disbursements in favour of third and sixth respondents ($66.79) |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Statutes | ERA s3(a)(i);ERA Second Schedule cl15 |
| Cases Cited | Aarts v Barnados New Zealand and Ors [2012] NZERA Auckland 22;Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Tawhiwhirangi [2008] ERNZ 73;Cliff v Air New Zealand Ltd unreported, Shaw J, 17 November 2006, AC 47A/06;New Zealand Automobile Association Inc v McKay [1996] 2 ERNZ 622;PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808;Victoria University of Wellington v Alton-Lee [2001] ERNZ 305 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_87.pdf [pdf 28 KB] |