Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch
Reference No CA 82A/09
Determination date 22 October 2009
Member P Montgomery
Representation R Brazil ; P Swarbrick
Location Christchurch
Parties Moir v Coles Myer NZ Holdings Ltd
Summary COSTS – Successful disadvantage claim – Unsuccessful unjustified dismissal claim – Unsuccessful penalty claim – One day investigation meeting – Applicant sought $3,000 reasonable contribution to costs for successful disadvantage claim – Applicant claimed costs attributable to applicant’s inability to perform role due to injuries caused by respondent’s failure to ensure safe working environment – Respondent sought $7,500 reasonable contribution for successful defence against unjustified dismissal and penalty claims – Respondent argued Authority’s disadvantage finding made by exercising discretion under s122 Employment Relations Act 2000 therefore applicant incurred no costs – Argued actual costs of $15,000 necessary to prepare for investigation in light of broad scope of pleadings raised by applicant and applicant’s failure to provide particulars – Authority found respondent’s claimed preparation time for penalty claim may be unnecessary when applicant only asserts breach of good faith obligations without evidence – Found respondent entitled to brief experienced counsel as respondent nationally-based company – Found significant costs award in favour of respondent would render nugatory modest awards made by Authority in substantive meetings – Found however, respondent put to excessive and unnecessary costs in preparing defence – Found $500 reasonable contribution appropriate – Costs in favour of respondent
Result Costs in favour of respondent ($500)
Main Category Costs
Statutes ERA s4;ERA s122;ERA cl15, sch2
Cases Cited Clear v Waikato District Health Board unreported, Scott J, 23 Feb 2008, AA 67/08;PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Secretary Limited) v Da Cruz [2005] ERNZ 808
Number of Pages 4
PDF File Link: ca 82a_09.pdf [pdf 15 KB]