| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 101A/10 |
| Determination date | 08 June 2010 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | A Sharp ; J Holden |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Sharpe v The Chief of the New Zealand Defence Force |
| Summary | COSTS - Successful interim injunction application - Half a day investigation meeting - Applicant sought $7,000 contribution to total costs of $16,000 plus disbursements - Applicant claimed proceedings required because respondent sought to continue with disciplinary investigation despite applicant expressing concerns about potential for incrimination - Applicant also referred to urgency of matter, volume of material that had to be prepared and importance of injunctive relief sought - Respondent acknowledged aware applicant contemplating proceedings but claimed not incumbent on respondent to put disciplinary investigation on hold - Claimed had proposed limiting issues to be dealt with - Respondent claimed as overall justice only marginally favoured applicant costs should lie where they fall, or alternatively, be no more than $1,500 plus disbursements - Authority took into account overall justice only marginally favoured applicant and respondent’s fundamental right to conduct disciplinary investigation - Found no reason to depart from daily tariff approach - Found some recognition needed to be given to detailed preparation, on urgent basis, that was required - Respondent to pay applicant $2,500 contribution to costs plus disbursements |
| Result | Costs in favour of applicant ($2,500) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($368.92) |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Cases Cited | Begley v Cropmark Seeds Ltd unreported, J Crichton, 7 Dec 2009, CA 168A/09;PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808 |
| Number of Pages | 3 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 101a_10.pdf [pdf 16 KB] |