| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 279/10 |
| Determination date | 11 June 2010 |
| Member | J Wilson |
| Representation | S King ; G Norton |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Flight Attendants & Related Services (NZ) Association v Air New Zealand |
| Summary | COSTS - Dispute claim - Matter determined on papers - Respondent sought $500 contribution to costs - Respondent claimed successful party and entitled to contribution to costs - Claimed clearly established representation by in-house counsel did not preclude costs award - Claimed applicant’s case had little merit and respondent proceeded in efficient manner and did not seek to unduly prolong or complicate proceedings - Applicant claimed costs should lie where they fall - Claimed determination useful to and provided parameters to both parties - Claimed unions should not be dissuaded from seeking such applications through applications to Authority by possibility costs will be awarded against them - Authority found respondent required to spend time and effort in responding to applicant’s statement of problem - Found appropriate respondent receive some contribution towards expense - Applicant to pay respondent $500 contribution to costs |
| Result | Costs in favour of respondent ($500) |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Cases Cited | Flight Attendants & Related Services (NZ) Association v Air New Zealand Ltd unreported, J Wilson, 4 Mar 2010, AA 99/10;Murphy and Routhan t/a Enzo's Pizza v van Beek [1998] 2 ERNZ 607;PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 279_10.pdf [pdf 18 KB] |