| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 29B/06 |
| Determination date | 28 November 2006 |
| Member | K Raureti |
| Representation | R Harrison ; C Patterson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Taylor v eCom New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | COSTS - Costs sought in respect of three separate investigation meetings - In first determination applicant granted interim reinstatement - Second investigation found dismissal justified - Also held applicant unjustifiably suspended but no award of compensation for humiliation or distress made - Third determination concerned unsuccessful arrears claim - Respondent's actual costs were $16,733 plus disbursements - Sought full costs incurred until second investigation and 75 percent of balance, a total of $12,447 - Alternatively sought 75 percent of reasonable costs, being $9,799 - Applicant argued costs should not exceed those normally awarded by Authority for two day meeting, with some concession for applicant's success with interim reinstatement application - Respondent submitted weight should be placed on applicant's rejection of two Calderbank offers - Nothing to suggest first offer anything other than without prejudice exchange between parties during attempts to negotiate resolution - Not regarded as Calderbank offer - Second offer clearly Calderbank offer and taken into consideration by Authority - Applicant paid for professional legal services throughout relevant period of offer and suggestion did not understand it not accepted - Appropriate for applicant to contribute $7,500 towards respondent's costs |
| Result | Costs in favour of respondent ($7,500) |
| Statutes | ERA Second Schedule cl15 |
| Cases Cited | PBO Ltd(formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808 |
| Number of Pages | 3 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 29b_06.pdf [pdf 30 KB] |