| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 15/07 |
| Hearing date | 22 Dec 2006 |
| Determination date | 13 February 2007 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | A McKenzie ; P Shaw |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Watt v Canterbury District Health Board |
| Summary | COSTS - Successful breach of contract claim and partially successful personal grievance - Length of investigation meeting not specified - Considerable overlap in evidence and grounds relied on for each claim - Unsuccessful unjustified dismissal claim more significant claim, and applicant's success in unjustified disadvantage claim led to modest award of compensation or damages - Authority noted applicant did not succeed with all factual allegations advanced in support of claims - In essence respondent claimed should be treated as successful party - Applicant submitted was successful in two out of three claims, and evidence for dismissal claim had to be heard in respect of successful claims - Claimed costs should lie where they fall - Respondent succeeded on major part of case - Would be wrong to award costs against it - Similarly, applicant enjoyed more than pyrrhic measure of success, would be wrong to order contribution to costs - Costs to lie where they fall |
| Result | Costs to lie where they fall |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Cases Cited | PBO Ltd(formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808 |
| Number of Pages | 2 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 15_07.pdf [pdf 14 KB] |