| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 40 |
| Determination date | 28 January 2011 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | M Ryan ; E Inger |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Tuck v Anglican Care (Waiapu) Ltd |
| Summary | COSTS – Unsuccessful personal grievance – Two day investigation meeting – Respondent sought $7,500 contribution to costs for interim reinstatement application and $7,500 for substantive matter – Respondent made two Calderbank offers to applicant – Authority found acceptance of first offer would have left applicant with something once costs covered – Found rejection of second offer led both parties to incur further costs – Found acceptance of second offer would have left applicant with better outcome than otherwise achieved – Applicant claimed unable to work because of illness so could not pay costs – Applicant claimed imposition of order higher than notional daily rate punishment – Found no additional information beyond assertions as to finances provided – Found information about applicant’s health too sparse to consider – Authority not satisfied applicant unable to meet order for costs – Found costs order higher than notional daily rate not punitive – Found costs sought by respondent not unreasonable – Found appropriate to increase costs award due to Calderbank offers - $14,000 contribution to costs appropriate |
| Result | Costs in favour of respondent ($14,000) |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Cases Cited | PBO Limited (formerly Rush Security Limited) v Da Cruz [2005] ERNZ 808;Watson v New Zealand Electrical Traders Limited t/a Bray Switchgear unreported, Colgan J, 24 Nov 2006, AC 64/06 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |