| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 279A/09 |
| Determination date | 12 November 2009 |
| Member | M Urlich |
| Representation | B Cunningham ; M Beeche, S Grice |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | X v Bay of Plenty District Health Board |
| Summary | COSTS – Successful personal grievance – Applicant sought costs award of $40,000 plus $2379 – Applicant claimed respondent’s conduct unnecessarily increased own costs – Claimed respondent unreasonably delayed progress of matter during various stages of the application – Claimed case important as applicant unwell and reinstatement of primary income sought – Applicant’s actual costs $81,284 – Applicant claimed costs billed reasonable given protracted nature of proceedings and extensive documents involved – Respondent argued usual notional daily rate should be reduced by 50 percent – Argued applicant caused delays and not wholly successful as did not receive awards sought – Also argued applicant’s actual costs excessive – Authority found usual for costs to follow the event – Found investigation time consuming by necessity as matter complex – Found notional daily rate to be multiplied by four – Respondent ordered to pay applicant $20,000 contribution to costs and $2379 disbursements |
| Result | Costs in favour of applicant ($20,000) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($2379.49) |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Cases Cited | PBO Ltd(formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 279a_09.pdf [pdf 26 KB] |