| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Christchurch 52 |
| Determination date | 08 March 2013 |
| Member | M B Loftus |
| Representation | S Boyce ; R Westphal |
| Parties | Howe-Thornley v The Salad Bowl Ltd |
| Summary | COSTS – Partially successful claims – Less than one day investigation meeting – Applicant sought $2,616 indemnity costs – Authority found award of costs not punitive – Found not appropriate to modify notional daily tariff – Respondent to pay applicant $1,750 contribution towards costs |
| Result | Costs in favour of applicant ($1,750) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($71.56)(filing fee) |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Cases Cited | Bradbury v Westpac Banking Corp [2009] 3 NZLR 400;Order of St John Midland Regional Trust Board v Greig [2004] 2 ERNZ 137;PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] ERNZ 808;Ranchhod v Auckland Healthcare Services Ltd (No 2) [2001] ERNZ 771;Sandilands v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections unreported, P Stapp, 10 September 2009, WA67A/09;Swales v AFFCO New Zealand Ltd unreported, Colgan J, 23 March 2001, AC19/01 |
| Number of Pages | 3 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Christchurch_52.pdf [pdf 141 KB] |