| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 84/10 |
| Determination date | 23 February 2010 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | J Roberts ; K Thompson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Simich and Ors v Air New Zealand Ltd |
| Other Parties | Russell, Finlayson, Peters, Benge, Rowan |
| Summary | COSTS - Authority did not approach question of costs on basis applicant having secured order for removal were successful parties - Applicants sought contribution to actual costs of $15,000 - Respondent argued applicant failed to serve copy of application for costs with reference to timetable in determination - Respondent sought order for $500 costs in own favour as circumstances of application for removal was sufficiently unusual - Authority found application for costs could not be addressed by respondent - Authority rejected applicant's argument documents as filed suffiecient to allow Authority to fully and fairly understand problem - Found respondent had incurred costs that should not have been incurred - Found circumstances of application for removal sufficiently unusual to warrant costs award in favour of respondent |
| Result | Costs in favour of respondent ($500) |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Statutes | ERA s178(2)(a) |
| Cases Cited | Horn v Greenlea Premier Meats Limited unreported, Shaw J, 2 April 2004, AC 20/04;McAlister v Air New Zealand Limited [2009] NZSC 78 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 84_10.pdf [pdf 19 KB] |