| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 194/07 |
| Determination date | 27 June 2007 |
| Member | M Urlich |
| Representation | C Patterson ; R Kapadia (in person) |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | PRP Auckland Ltd (formerly Axiom Rolle PRP Valuations Services Ltd) v Kapadia |
| Summary | COSTS - Successful breach of contract claim - One day investigation meeting - Applicant sought contribution of $4,750 towards actual costs of $15,000 - Respondent submitted applicant’s conduct unnecessarily increased costs by not settling or defending application in face of clear evidence of breach - Actual costs incurred by applicant - Applicant argued because was successful party, costs should follow event and particular characteristics of case meant tariff based approach not appropriate - Respondent submitted applicant raised false and voluminous allegations resulting in complex and expensive litigation, and declined settlement offer - Also argued premature to set costs as challenge before Employment Court - Award fairly recognised case out of ordinary in terms of complexity and level of preparation required, while balancing impact award may have on respondent due to his financial circumstances - Applicant entitled to contribution to costs - Applicant retained property of respondent - Given inadequate information before Authority, no order for return of property |
| Result | Costs in favour of applicant ($2,700) |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Cases Cited | PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808 |
| Number of Pages | 3 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 194_07.pdf [pdf 18 KB] |