| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Wellington 123 |
| Determination date | 08 October 2012 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | B Buckett ; P Churchman |
| Parties | French v Accident Compensation Corporation |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Removal of matter to Employment Court (“EC”) on own motion – Applicant sought contribution towards costs - Authority found question of costs incurred in Authority most effectually addressed at same time EC determined costs relating to EC matters – Found in parties’ interests that costs relating to Authority and EC matters be determined in one place by forum making final decisions – Found in all circumstances EC should determine matter - Matter removed to EC |
| Abstract | Authority considered removal of matter to Employment Court (“EC”) on own motion. Applicant challenged Authority’s previous determination applicant had not been unjustifiably disadvantaged. Authority previously reserved costs. Matter yet to be decided by EC. Authority removed applicant’s subsequent unjustified dismissal claim to EC and ordered that applicant’s personal grievance claims be removed to EC in their entirety. Authority reserved costs on second removal application. Applicant sought $4,042 indemnity costs or $3,500 contribution towards costs relating to successful practice and procedure claim that applicant's second personal grievance be removed to EC. Applicant claimed respondent’s opposition to removal of unjustified dismissal claim lacked merit and frivolous. Respondent claimed applicant’s 10 month delay before unjustified dismissal claim filed unexplained and applicant’s claim misconceived. Respondent claimed further delay likely if unjustified dismissal claim removed to EC. Respondent claimed Authority should continue to reserve costs and opposed removal of costs matter to EC.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: In EC’s most recent decision relating to matter EC raised likelihood that way applicant had conducted case would have some bearing on how costs determined. Question of costs incurred in Authority most effectually and economically addressed at same time EC determined costs relating to EC matters. Although EC did not have first-hand knowledge of Authority investigation, EC in better position to look at matter and history overall. In parties’ interests that costs relating to Authority and EC matters be determined in one place by forum making final decisions. In all circumstances EC should determine matter. Matter removed to EC. |
| Result | Application granted ; No order for costs |
| Main Category | Practice & Procedure |
| Statutes | ERA s178;ERA s178(2)(d) |
| Cases Cited | French v Accident Compensation Corporation [2011] NZERA Wellington 2;French v Accident Compensation Corporation [2011] NZERA Wellington 202;French v Accident Compensation Corporation [2012] NZEmpC 140 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Wellington_123.pdf [pdf 144 KB] |