| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 158/10 |
| Determination date | 07 April 2010 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | T Drake ; J Rooney |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Miller v Fonterra Co-Operative Dairy Group Ltd |
| Summary | COSTS - Successful application for removal to Employment Court - Less than half a day investigation meeting - Applicant sought $2,800 contribution to total costs of $4,218 - Applicant claimed complexity of legal issues such respondent should have reasonably accepted removal application made on proper grounds - Respondent sought $6,000 contribution to costs - Claimed were wasted costs in Authority prior to filing of removal application - In alternative, respondent claimed Authority should take usual approach to costs award and make order for no more than $250 - Found while respondent unsuccessful in opposing removal did not mean should have reasonably accepted grounds for removal made out - Authority found unfortunate problem as filed did not reflect true complexity of matter - Found while Authority has different procedures and less formal than Courts did not mean could ignore relevant legal matters - Found took parties and Authority time to identify and shape issues - Found each party should bear own costs in that respect - Found application took less than half a day but involved more preparation and argument than sometimes the case with removal applications - Respondent to pay $1,000 contribution to applicant’s costs |
| Result | Costs in favour of applicant ($1,000) |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Cases Cited | Binnie v Pacific Health Ltd [2002] 1 ERNZ 438;PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808 |
| Number of Pages | 2 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 158_10.pdf [pdf 10 KB] |