| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 63/08 |
| Determination date | 09 May 2008 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | W Chew, R Chew ; S Rowe |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Chew v Aslan Consulting Ltd and Ors |
| Other Parties | Trinity Systems Ltd, Howard |
| Summary | COSTS - Partially successful personal grievance - Two investigation meetings - Less than one day preliminary investigation meeting - One day substantive investigation meeting - Second respondent sought contribution to costs of $28,487.95 being 90 percent of actual solicitor-client costs and disbursements - Applicant submitted costs should lie where they fall and/or Authority should award applicant $1,000 costs with respect to preliminary investigation and assess costs for substantive investigation on notional daily rate - Second respondent submitted notional daily rate not appropriate because nature of applicant’s claim and manner case conducted fell well outside usual conduct of cases in Authority - Applicant submitted issue as to reasonableness of respondent’s cost - Applicant disputed respondent’s claims about nature of claims - Authority found second respondent successful in interlocutory investigation - Second respondent entitled to costs award - However, found second respondent’s claim inconsistent with role of Authority and matter did not justify award of full solicitor/client costs - Applicant to pay second respondent contribution to costs of $2,500 with disbursements of $260.15 - Authority found was very important case to parties and accordingly justified higher level of preparation - Second respondent had to answer wide ranging claims, increasing amount of preparation time required - Authority found not just to determine costs simply on notional daily rate as disregarded particular characteristics of case - However, found second respondent’s claim of 90 percent actual costs not reasonable or justified - In all circumstances fair and reasonable costs award for substantive investigation was $5,000 plus disbursements of $511.88 |
| Result | Costs in favour of second respondent ($7,500) ; Disbursements ($772.03) |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Statutes | ERA s221 |
| Cases Cited | Heffernan v Estate of Patrick David Heffernan unreported, P Cheyne, 23 Jun 2006, CA 59A/06;PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 63_08.pdf [pdf 34 KB] |