| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 182A/10 |
| Determination date | 13 July 2010 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | E Hartdegen ; A Drake |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Collier-Wilson v Auckland District Health Board |
| Summary | COSTS - Unsuccessful personal grievance and recovery of monies claim - Two day investigation meeting - Respondent relied on Employment Court (“EC”) case to support submission Authority should take two thirds of costs incurred as starting point for costs award and then adjust award upwards to take into account relevant factors - Respondent claimed applicant’s allegations difficult to interpret and lacked certainty - Claimed because of that respondent had to prepare case to cover all possibilities - Respondent claimed made attempts to settle matter although not Calderbank offer - Respondent claimed having taken grievance seeking to resume employment in specific unit applicant then resigned about one and a half weeks after investigation meeting - Respondent claimed $51,375 contribution to costs appropriate - Applicant claimed level of costs awarded by EC not available in Authority and so EC case not applicable - Applicant claimed respondent’s legal costs “excessive in the extreme” - Claimed resignation unforeseeable - Applicant claimed currently unemployed and experiencing financial difficulties - Claimed costs to lie where they fall or daily tariff of $500 to $1,500 appropriate - Authority accepted applicant’s submission that EC case did not have general application to Authority costs determinations - Found EC had found nothing wrong in principle in tariff approach adopted by Authority as long as not applied rigidly - Found tariff approach provided degree of certainty to parties - Found applicant’s claims not clearly articulated and required respondent to prepare case to ensure all possibilities covered - Authority accepted settlement offers made, although not Calderbank offer - Authority did not accept resignation unforeseeable - Found but for applicant’s financial circumstances would have substantially increased daily tariff - However, found would be undue hardship on applicant so found $3,000 daily tariff appropriate - Applicant to pay respondent $6,000 contribution to costs plus $500 disbursements |
| Result | Costs in favour of respondent ($6,000) ; Disbursements in favour of respondent ($500) |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Statutes | ERA Second Schedule cl15 |
| Cases Cited | Collier-Wilson v Auckland District Health Board unreported, K Anderson, 21 Apr 2010, AA 182/10;Gates v Air New Zealand Ltd [2010] NZEMPC 26;PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 182a_10.pdf [pdf 25 KB] |