| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2017] NZERA Auckland 264 |
| Determination date | 01 September 2017 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | A Schirnack ; T Oldfield |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Lancom Technology Ltd v Forman and Anor |
| Other Parties | Kang |
| Summary | COSTS – Successful breach of contract claim –Two day investigation meeting – Respondents each made $7,500 Calderbank offers to the applicant – Applicant rejected reasonable Calderbank offers – First respondent sought $11,000 and second respondent sought $10,000 contribution towards costs – Respondents sought uplift of the tariff taking into account earlier settlement offers and where a party’s conduct unnecessarily increases costs – Authority found $2000 uplift in daily tariff appropriate to reflect the applicant’s rejection of offers – Applicant to pay first respondent $7,000 and second respondent $6,000 contribution towards costs |
| Result | Costs in favour of respondent ($13,000) |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Statutes | ERA s3(a)(v);ERA s159;ERA Second Schedule cl15(2) |
| Cases Cited | Bluestar Print Group (NZ) Ltd v Mitchell [2010] NZCA 385;Fagotti v Acme & Co Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 135;Health Waikato Ltd v Van der Sluis (1997) 5 NZELC 95,720 (CA);Lancom Technology Ltd v Forman & Kang [2017] NZERA Auckland 221;PBO Ltd (Formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] ERNZ 808 (EmpC) |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | 2017_NZERA_Auckland_264.pdf [pdf 253 KB] |