| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 25 |
| Determination date | 08 February 2011 |
| Member | P Cheyne |
| Representation | D Beck ; F Reade |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Smith v Pacific Optics Ltd |
| Summary | COSTS – Partially successful personal grievance claim – Unsuccessful penalty claim - Length of investigation meeting not specified - Applicant filed application for costs after expiration of timeframe set by Authority - Applicant had informed respondent intending to claim costs unless respondent agreed to a proposal by specified date – Respondent replied noting time for filing application for costs elapsed but offering modest contribution to costs – Applicant then filed application for costs - Authority noted that in Metallic Sweeping (1998) Ltd v Whitehead Employment Court saw similarity between current position and that of statutory time limit for filing challenge in Court – That is once time elapsed, party otherwise at risk of challenge entitled to assume matter at an end and take steps accordingly - Found respondent let right of challenge expire partly because liability under substantive determination small and had appeared would not be increased by costs claim - Found if respondent exposed to costs award in accordance with usual principles, might come to different view about original determination without now having right of challenge - Found no explanation provided as to why costs application filed late - Authority found while delay short in absence of explanation and potential unfairness to respondent no costs should be awarded – Costs to lie where they fall |
| Result | Costs to lie where they fall |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Cases Cited | Metallic Sweeping (1998) Ltd v Whitehead [2010] NZEMPC 23 |
| Number of Pages | 3 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_25.pdf [pdf 12 KB] |