| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 105A/10 |
| Determination date | 18 August 2010 |
| Member | H Doyle |
| Representation | D Beck ; S Langton |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | James and Ors v New Zealand Vineyard Estates Ltd |
| Other Parties | Jaye-McVea, Galbraith, Papworth |
| Summary | COSTS – Successful personal grievance – Less than one day investigation meeting – Respondent argued applicants failed to make costs submissions within time and that ought to count against them – Argued prejudice reason not to increase time for making costs submission – Authority found respondent knew applicants likely to make application for costs therefore no prejudice suffered – Found parties engaged in early discussions to settle costs – Found flexibility in timeframe for costs submissions should not be denied to applicants – Authority proceeded to determine costs - Applicants sought $4,240 full indemnity costs on grounds counter-Calderbank offer declined by respondent – Respondent argued costs should lie where they fall as Authority decided earlier determination on basis of personal grievance other than that alleged – Respondent made Calderbank offer four days before investigation meeting but met with counter-Calderbank offer – Respondent declined counter-offer and advanced new Calderbank offer with further reduction in costs contribution day before investigation – Applicants unsuccessfully attempted to settle by telephone conference before proceeding to Authority - Authority found while no time limit for Calderbank offer, the closer offer made to investigation meeting the less impact offer would have on costs award – Found given proximity of investigation and need for applicants to prepare for investigation, new Calderbank offer with reduction in costs contribution unacceptable – Found appropriate to not take Calderbank offers into account – Found although Authority made grievance finding other than that alleged, it should not deprive applicants of costs – Authority emphasised would be occasions were employment relationship problem different from that alleged – Costs to follow event - Found respondent put to additional expense by preparing to defend alleged grievance but insufficient to not make costs award – Found on basis of daily tariff rate, $2,500 total costs in favour of applicants appropriate |
| Result | Costs in favour of applicants ($2,500) |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Statutes | ERA s160 |
| Cases Cited | Metallic Sweeping (1998) Ltd v Whitehead [2010] NZEMPC 23 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 105a_10.pdf [pdf 22 KB] |