| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 460A/10 |
| Determination date | 23 December 2010 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | D Rishworth; G Taylor |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Payne and Anor v Ellmers Properties |
| Other Parties | Payne |
| Summary | COSTS - Unsuccessful personal grievance - Half a day investigation meeting - Respondents’ advocate filed costs memorandum two weeks late - Authority required respondents to file for extension of time - Advocate provided generalised statement about difficulties in contacting client and pressure of work - Applicant opposed application - Claimed entitled to consider matter at an end at expiry of 28 day period - Authority found, subject to any material expressed to be without prejudice, respondents had real chance of success in costs application - Found parties had also unsuccessfully attempted to settle costs after determination issued so fact respondents seeking costs should not have been surprise to applicants - Found while dissatisfied with length of delay and inadequacy of explanation found on balance by bare margin application should be granted - Respondents sought $4,000 contribution to costs - Claimed amount sought direct reflection of preparation carried out - Claimed applicants initially filed separate claims necessitating extra work to identify differences - Claimed applicants made claims under Minimum Wage Act 1983 (“MWA”) which did not proceed - Applicants claimed costs should lie where they fall - Applicants relied on respondents’ failure to provide copies of certain documentation until investigation meeting - Claimed matter argued concisely and expeditiously and claims under MWA abandoned at early stage - Applicants asked extra costs incurred in dealing with extension of time application be considered - Authority found respondents as successful parties entitled to contribution to costs - Found while claims initially filed separately heard together which reduced costs - Found likely most costs associated with MWA incurred in initial dealings with Labour Inspector - Found notional daily rate for half a day investigation meeting would be $1,750 - Authority considered it appropriate to reduce that amount to reflect unnecessary extra costs applicants put to in addressing application for extension of time - Applicants jointly and severally ordered to contribute $1,250 to respondents’ costs |
| Result | Costs in favour of respondents ($1,250) |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Statutes | Wages Protection Act 1983 |
| Cases Cited | Metallic Sweeping (1998) Ltd v Whitehead [2010] NZEMPC 23;PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808;Stevenson v Hato Paora College Trust Board [2002] 2 ERNZ 103 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 460a_10.pdf [pdf 24 KB] |