| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 11B/10 |
| Determination date | 12 October 2010 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | J Beck ; W Van Harselaar |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Johnson and Anor v Kloogh |
| Other Parties | New Zealand Health Insurance Brokers Ltd |
| Summary | COSTS - Successful personal grievance - Unsuccessful practice and procedure claim - One day investigation meeting - Applicant sought full costs of $7,150 - Claimed successful in unjustified dismissal claim against first respondent - Applicant received nearly $15,000 in remedies of which $5,000 was compensation - Applicant sought full costs as costs of brining claim higher than level of compensation awarded - Authority found not appropriate to focus only on compensatory component in assessing extent to which applicant would be deprived of fruits of victory by receiving unduly low costs award - Found no conduct of type which would attract award of full costs nor was any alleged - Found notional daily rate appropriate - First respondent to pay applicant $3,000 contribution to costs - Second respondent sought $4,000 costs on ground successful defending claim was applicant’s employer in personal capacity - Second applicant initially named as only employer - Found late application for joinder of first respondent led to adjournment of scheduled investigation meeting - Found second respondent incurred costs on own account in preparing for meeting - However, found most of evidence and argument on identity of employer also directly relevant to whether first respondent was employer - Authority did accept second respondent incurred costs separately from first respondent though - Found applicant entitled to contribution to costs but due to nature and effect of overlapping matters modest contribution appropriate - Applicant to pay second respondent $750 contribution to costs - Another company (“X”) sought full costs of $936 for successfully defending application for joinder - First respondent had alleged X was applicant’s employer - Authority found outcome of case was not reflection on merits of X’s position on whether was applicant’s employer - Found just because Authority declined application for joinder did not mean applicant could not have commenced proceedings against X at later date - Found X to bear own costs |
| Result | Costs in favour of applicant ($3,000) ; Costs in favour of second respondent ($750) |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Cases Cited | Bradbury v Westpac Banking Corporation [2009] NZCA 234;Johnson v New Zealand Health Insurance Brokers Ltd & Anor unreported, H Doyle, 21 Jan 2010, CA 11/10;PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 11b_10.pdf [pdf 18 KB] |