| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 9/04 |
| Determination date | 12 January 2004 |
| Member | J Wilson |
| Representation | B Spong ; B McCarthy, P Tremewan |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Stowers v Auto Point Ltd and Ors |
| Other Parties | Auto Point Kelston Ltd, Kane, Auto Point Wholesale Ltd, Auto Point Service Centre Ltd |
| Summary | COSTS - Successful unjustified dismissal claim but unsuccessful claims for commission payments and mareva injunction - Authority found first respondent was applicant's employer - Question of identity of employer not time consuming - Considered costs as if claims brought separately - Any costs award made to applicant would have been offset by costs awarded against him for unsuccessful claims - Equitable for costs to lie where they fall |
| Result | No order for costs |
| Cases Cited | Binnie v Pacific Health Ltd [2002] 1 ERNZ 438;Reid v New Zealand Fire Service Commission [1995] 2 ERNZ 38;Victoria University of Wellington v Alton-Lee [2001] ERNZ 305 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |