| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 258B/09 |
| Determination date | 14 September 2009 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | Q Li ; D Liu |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Zhang v Hollywood Bakery (Holdings) Ltd |
| Summary | COSTS – Unsuccessful compliance order claim – One day investigation meeting - Respondent sought $17,678 costs on solicitor-client basis - Sought orders applicant and applicant’s representative (“L”) be jointly liable for costs – Respondent claimed L “real driving force behind applicant’s claims” - Claimed L had animosity towards respondent as L acted for another employee against respondent – Authority found notional daily rate approach appropriate – Found applicant’s case pointless from outset and investigation unnecessarily lengthened by L’s unhelpful arguments – Found respondent warned higher than usual costs would be pursued if successful in substantive determination – Found costs against L not warranted because Authority procedure relatively informal and Employment Relations Act 2000 recognises parties may be represented by non-professional advocates – Found $4000 reasonable contribution appropriate – Costs in favour of respondent |
| Result | Costs in favour of respondent ($4,000) |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Statutes | ERA s221;ERA cl15, sch2 |
| Cases Cited | L v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development (2008) 19 PRNZ 116;PBO Ltd v da Cruz [2005] ERNZ 808;Tian v Hollywood Bakery (Holdings) Ltd, unreported, Robinson J, 30 Apr 2008, AA 161/08;Zhang v Hollywood Bakery (Holdings) Ltd, unreported, Arthur J, 31 Jul 2009, AA 258/09 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 258b_09.pdf [pdf 15 KB] |