| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 76/10 |
| Determination date | 17 February 2010 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Speed v Hyro New Zealand (In Liquidation) & Anor |
| Other Parties | Hyro Services PTY Ltd |
| Summary | COSTS - Successful personal grievance - Less than one day investigation meeting - Applicant sought $3,000 contribution to costs - Second respondent claimed $3,000 at top end of costs scale and award should be between $1,000 and $2,000 to reflect length of investigation meeting - Parties referred to second respondent’s failure to participate in investigation meeting and in investigation generally - Found purpose of costs to compensate not punish - Found consequences of second respondent’s conduct already visited on it by restrictions Employment Court placed on its ability to proceed with de novo challenge - Authority did not consider second respondent’s non participation in investigation meeting significantly reduced applicant’s costs - Found much of preparation done before investigation meeting - Found level of monetary remedies awarded to applicant was indication of higher degree of preparation required for less straightforward matter it was - Authority considered award near top end of notional daily rate warranted - Second respondent to pay applicant $2,750 contribution to costs |
| Result | Costs in favour of applicant ($2,750) |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Statutes | ERA Second Schedule cl15 |
| Cases Cited | PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808 |
| Number of Pages | 2 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 76_10.pdf [pdf 11 KB] |