| Summary |
COSTS - Personal grievance application withdrawn - No investigation meeting - Applicant claimed sexually harassed by respondent - Applicant originally pursued matter through mediation with Human Rights Commission - Applicant then filed statement of problem in Authority - Applicant subsequently informed Authority would not be pursuing matter and formally withdrew application - Respondent sought indemnity costs of $1,782 on basis had been established applicant’s case without merit - Claimed respondent suffered stress and worry over unfounded allegations and applicant never provided corroborating evidence - Applicant claimed was evidence to support claim and costs should be reserved at least until application to reopen investigation heard - Authority found level of costs, indeed if any, to be awarded in respect of withdrawn claim depended on time withdrawal made - Found applicant withdrew case over month before investigation meeting - Found that was before respondent required to produce evidence to Authority - Found respondent could therefore only claim for work done in providing statement in reply - Found in absence of bad faith no reason for employee pursuing grievance to be required to contribute to employer’s costs of filing statement in reply and to query why applicant’s statements not received on time - Found no evidence of bad faith or ulterior motive for claim - Costs to lie where they fall - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application to reopen investigation - Applicant claimed mother now available to give evidence and that further witness identified who allegedly experienced similar treatment from respondent that applicant claimed experienced - Applicant did not provide name of witness as witness feared retaliation from respondent - Authority noted power to reopen investigation discretionary and may be upon such terms as Authority thought reasonable - However, accepted general principles as to rehearings applying under common law applicable, after taking into account Authority’s investigative role - Found some of evidence applicant sought to rely on could have been obtained in advance of investigation meeting and withdrawal of case with reasonable diligence - Found applicant essentially relying on secret witness - Found was no statement provided from secret witness - Found therefore impossible to state that any evidence from her would probably have important influence on result of applicant’s case - Found possible availability of applicant’s mother not sufficient to justify reopening - Found no reason given for her unavailability at first investigation meeting set down, nor degree to which her evidence would have been important, other than to provide evidence of applicant's distress - Authority not satisfied were grounds for reopening investigation - Application dismissed |