| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 204A/10 |
| Determination date | 30 July 2010 |
| Member | Y S Oldfield |
| Representation | P Blair ; P Swarbrick |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Whitney and Ors v New Zealand Post Ltd |
| Summary | COSTS – Dispute answered in favour of respondent – Less than one day investigation meeting – Respondent sought $4,500 as reasonable contribution to costs – Applicants argued costs should lie where they fall as determination “finely balanced” – Argued respondent should have engaged employment advocate rather than counsel to save costs – Argued alternatively, applicants had challenged determination therefore Authority should defer costs until outcome known – Authority found usually appropriate to let costs lie where they fall in disputes involving interpretation of collective employment agreement (“CEA”) – Found however, determination not “finely balanced” as respondent’s view clearly supported by plain meaning of CEA – Found quality of respondent’s submissions reflected costs incurred, however careful reading of CEA needed rather than lengthy legal arguments – Found appropriate in circumstances to award respondent $1,500 reasonable contribution to costs – Costs in favour of respondent |
| Result | Costs in favour of respondent ($1,500) |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Number of Pages | 3 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 204a_10.pdf [pdf 11 KB] |