Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No AA 156/06
Determination date 05 May 2006
Member R A Monaghan
Representation M Lewis ; S Langton
Location Auckland
Parties Hill v Pyrotek Products Ltd
Summary COSTS - Unsuccessful personal grievance - 2ï¾½ day investigation meeting - Respondent sought greater than usual award based on Calderbank offer - Applicant submitted costs should lie where they fall - Alternatively, applicant claimed usual daily rate should apply with discount to reflect ability to pay, and that reasonable contribution should be no more than $5,000 - Applicant claimed Calderbank offer provided little compensation after costs and no redress for 'non-monetary' aspects of claim - Parties should be wary of allowing legal costs to become so high during early stages of dispute that they adversely affect prospects of settlement - Not a complete answer to say Calderbank offer inadequate - Offer weighed in favour of award above usual range - Substantive decision reflected fact applicant's position based on unfounded assumptions - Unnecessary to take this into account again - Authority would have awarded $8,000 but considering applicant's ability to pay award reduced to $5,000
Result Costs in favour of respondent ($5,000)
Number of Pages 2
PDF File Link: aa 156_06.pdf [pdf 10 KB]