| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 23/06 |
| Determination date | 07 February 2006 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | T Drake ; M Crotty |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Graham v Crestline Pty Ltd |
| Summary | COSTS - Previous determination found that respondent was not applicant's employer - Investigation meeting over three days long - Respondent sought contribution of $49,469 towards total costs of $112,112 - This was a problem in which the so-called tariff applied in the Authority should be revised upwards - Its length and complexity required a degree of assistance from the parties which involved more of the elements of an adversarial process than in less complex problems - Number of additional activities such as considering certain financial and other documentary information added to costs - Total overall reasonable costs assessed as $32,800 - Costs of travel and accommodation valid expenses - Administration costs of $4,767 high but accepted were reasonably incurred - While applicant suffered drop in income after termination of employment not enough to persuade Authority a nil or small award of costs would be appropriate - Contribution of $15,000 plus disbursements appropriate |
| Result | Costs in favour of respondent ($15,000) ; Disbursements ($9,370) |
| Statutes | ERA Second Schedule cl4A;ERA Second Schedule cl6(1);Interpreters' Fees Regulations 1974 |
| Cases Cited | Binnie v Pacific Health Ltd [2002] 1 ERNZ 438;Daniels v Maori Television Service unreported, A Dumbleton, 15 December 2005, AA 330A/05;Health Waikato v Elmsly Ltd [2004] 1 ERNZ 172;PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808;Victoria University of Wellington v Alton Lee [2001] ERNZ 305 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 23_06.pdf [pdf 32 KB] |