| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 126A/10 |
| Determination date | 14 June 2010 |
| Member | J Wilson |
| Representation | D Liu ; no appearance |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Hollywood Bakery (Holdings) Ltd |
| Summary | COSTS - Successful compliance order application - Length of investigation meeting not specified - Applicant sought indemnity costs of $3,160 against first respondent - Applicant claimed first respondent systematically ignored and flouted Authority’s orders - Claimed first respondent failed to appear at Authority despite having been called to attend - Claimed would not have incurred legal costs had first respondent abided by Authority’s orders - No costs submissions received from respondents - Authority found first respondent had consistently ignored all Authority’s attempts to engage him in investigation process - However, Authority mindful of general principle that costs award in Authority should be modest - Found applicant put to unnecessary expense but paradoxically respondents’ failure to participate in process meant time required by applicant shorter than might otherwise have been - Taking all circumstances into account first respondent to pay applicant $2,000 contribution to costs plus disbursements |
| Result | Costs in favour of applicant ($2,000) ; Disbursements in favour of applicant ($193.75) |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Cases Cited | Hollywood Bakery (Holdings) Ltd v Li and Anor unreported, J Wilson, 17 Mar 2010, AA 126/10;PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 126a_10.pdf [pdf 14 KB] |