| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 157A/10 |
| Determination date | 02 December 2010 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | A McKenzie ; P McBride |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Tropotova and Anor v OCS Ltd |
| Other Parties | Tropotova |
| Summary | COSTS - Successful personal grievance - Two day investigation meeting - Respondent, despite being unsuccessful party, sought contribution to costs - Respondent claimed effect of several Calderbank offers needed to be taken into account, and properly considered, effect of decided cases was to “reverse” usual costs liability - Claimed Calderbank offers more generous than Authority’s eventual decision, and so Authority ought to make costs order against applicants in favour of respondent - Respondent claimed as second applicant’s legal aid withdrawn prior to substantive investigation meeting legal aid ought not to be factor in Authority’s deliberations - Applicants resisted respondent’s claim for costs and claimed costs should lie where they fall - Applicants acknowledged Calderbank offers made and rejected - Claimed second applicant did better form Authority’s decision than would have if Calderbank offer accepted - Authority found respondent’s submissions about legal aid misplaced - Found second applicant granted legal aid and bill rendered - While legal aid was withdrawn during proceedings Authority satisfied usual rules relating to legal aid in costs setting applied - Found no exceptional circumstances - Found if costs to be awarded against second applicant those costs would amount to second applicant’s contribution to legal aid - Authority found respondent’s costs significant for what was reasonably straightforward investigation - Authority satisfied respondent’s failure to make any proposal in respect to pre-offer costs incurred by applicants, coupled with very short period for consideration of matter prior to the investigation meeting rendered Calderbank letters ineffectual - Found most of preparation costs for investigation meeting would already have been incurred - Authority found was case where costs should lie where they fall - Found fairness and equity demanded result where, as to costs, neither party could be seen to have profited from the other - Costs to lie where they fall |
| Result | Costs to lie where they fall |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Statutes | ERA s124;Legal Services Act 2000 s40;Legal Services Act 2000 s40(2) |
| Cases Cited | Awa v Independent News Auckland Ltd [1996] 2 NZLR 184;Bluestar Print Group (NZ) Ltd v Mitchell [2010] ERNZ 446;Jack v Ministry of Justice (formerly Department for Courts) unreported, Shaw J, 18 Mar 2005, WC 6/05;Jackson v Moyes Motor Group Ltd [2005] 1 ERNZ 504;Tropotova and Anor v OCS Ltd and Anor unreported, J Crichton, 25 May 2009, CA 66/09;Troptova and Anor v OCS Ltd and Anor unreported, J Crichton, 17 Jul 2009, CA 66A/09 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | ca 157a_10.pdf [pdf 26 KB] |