| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 230A/09 |
| Determination date | 27 August 2009 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | P Revell ; S Barter |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Dunn v Ecocover (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | COSTS – Unsuccessful practice and procedure application – Length of investigation meeting not specified – Respondent sought $9,200 as contribution to costs – Respondent claimed applicant made improper bad faith allegations against second respondent – Claimed applicant’s refusal to withdraw “without prejudice” communications and decline of settlement offer incurred costs – Authority found contribution to costs appropriate as applicant’s error in approach resulted in unsuccessful determination – Found applicant used irrelevant evidence to impugn second respondent’s credibility – Found settlement offer should have been accepted to save costs, however, applicant’s application had some merit to justify substantive determination – Found $3,000 contribution to costs appropriate – Costs in favour of respondent |
| Result | Costs in favour of respondent ($3,000) |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Statutes | Evidence Act 2006 s57 |
| Cases Cited | PBO Limited (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] ERNZ 808 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |