| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 250 |
| Determination date | 14 November 2012 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | L Brook ; R Towner, E Coats, P Churchman |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Warren Skerrett Investment Ltd & Ors v Broad |
| Other Parties | Southern Wealth Management Ltd, Camelot NZ Ltd Partnership |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for joinder – Third party sought to be joined as party solely for determining costs - SWM joined solely for issue of determining costs - COSTS – Successful practice and procedure claim by applicants but SWM ordered to produce documents – Length of investigation meeting not specified - SWM sought contribution towards costs incurred in SWM’s opposition of application and full costs incurred by SWM in complying with order – Authority found not bound to accept High Court approach when considering non-party costs applications and should focus on what was reasonable contribution towards SWM’s costs - Found $1,000 contribution towards SWM’s legal costs and $2,500 towards administrative costs reasonable in circumstances - First applicant to pay SWM $3,500 contribution towards costs |
| Abstract | Respondent working for third party (“SWM”). SWM sought to be joined as party solely for determining costs. Authority previously ordered SWM to produce documents. SWM sought contribution towards SWM’s opposition of application and full costs incurred by SWM in complying with order. SWM claimed acted reasonably when responded to first applicant’s request for documents and first applicant did not give SWM opportunity to provide information prior to application. SWM claimed opposition to application partially successful as no order telephone records to be disclosed and persons who received documents very limited. Applicants claimed SWM’s costs very high and SWM had only slight success. Applicants claimed usual daily tariff approach should apply as starting point when determining costs.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: SWM joined solely for issue of determining costs.;COSTS: Authority noted costs in relation to production of documents by SWM to be determined only with respect to first applicant. Authority not bound to accept High Court approach when considering non-party costs applications. Authority should focus on what was reasonable contribution towards SWM’s costs. Reasonable for SWM to seek legal advice about application for production of documents however SWM’s legal costs not reasonable in circumstances. $1,000 contribution towards SWM’s legal costs and $2,500 towards administrative costs reasonable in circumstances. First applicant to pay SWM $3,500 contribution towards costs. |
| Result | Costs in favour of third party joined for costs purposes ($3,500) ; Disbursements in favour of third party joined for costs purposes ($240)(photocopying charges) |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Statutes | ERA s160(1)(a);ERA Second Schedule cl15;High Court Rules r8.27 |
| Cases Cited | Air New Zealand Ltd v E-Gatematrix New Zealand Ltd (2007) 18 PRNZ 501;Kidd v Equity Realty (1995) Ltd [2010] NZCA 452;PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808;Rooney Earthmoving Ltd v McTeague [2010] NZEmpC 131;Warren Skerrett Investments Limited v Donald Broad [2011] NZERA Christchurch 128 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_250.pdf [pdf 220 KB] |