| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 101A/09 |
| Determination date | 23 December 2009 |
| Member | P Montgomery |
| Representation | M Ritchie ; H Kynaston, J Holden |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Grey v Director-General of Conservation and Anor |
| Other Parties | The Solicitor-General |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Applicant applied for recall of Authority determination – Authority found no criteria met to recall determination – Found applicant filed de novo challenge to Employment Court, rendering further involvement of Authority nugatory for any matter other than costs - Found no formal application to reopen investigation made – COSTS – Unsuccessful personal grievances - Two investigation meetings over four days - First respondent sought applicant’s contribution to actual costs and disbursements of $81,982 – Applicant opposed awards of costs on grounds Authority exceeded jurisdiction and findings breached natural justice; decision void and should be recalled; in those circumstances, no jurisdiction and contrary to purposes of Employment Relations Act 2000 to award costs – First respondent argued made several offers of settlement, and issues complex – Authority found costs should follow event – Authority fixed daily tariff at $3,000 – Applicant to pay first respondent contribution of $12,000 to reasonably incurred costs, and $1,500 to disbursements |
| Result | Application dismissed (application to recall determination) ; Costs in favour of first respondent ($12,000) ; Disbursements in favour of first respondent ($1,500) |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Statutes | ERA s123(1)(c)(i) |
| Cases Cited | Horowhenua County v Nash (No. 2) [1968] NZLR 632;PBO Limited (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] ERNZ 808 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 101a_09.pdf [pdf 37 KB] |