| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 107 |
| Determination date | 22 March 2011 |
| Member | E Robinson |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Casares v AAV New Zealand Ltd |
| Summary | COSTS - Unsuccessful jurisdiction claim - One day investigation meeting - Respondent sought full solicitor/client costs of $37,050 plus disbursements - Respondent sought increase in daily tariff of $3,000 - Claimed increase warranted for four reasons - Firstly, in recognition of preparation time required - Secondly, not appropriate nor equitable for Authority to adopt daily tariff approach for case which involved independent contractor’s claim for commission on substantial commercial contract based on principle of quantum meruit - Thirdly, costs should follow the event and respondent entirely successful - Fourthly, claimed applicant chose to “forum-shop”, by bringing claim in Authority more appropriately brought in District or High Court, resulting in significant waste of time and cost to respondent and Authority - Applicant claimed $2,000 daily tariff appropriate - Claimed investigation meeting concerned preliminary matter only, necessitating submissions on preliminary issue alone - Claimed indemnity costs should apply only in situation in which applicant exhibited “exceptionally bad behaviour” - Applicant claimed genuinely believed was in correct forum for deciding matter of jurisdiction, and further genuinely believed was employee - Authority found issue of whether applicant employee or independent contractor was matter within Authority’s jurisdiction - Found neither party should have had extensive preparation time as principles on which determination based well established - Found unusual for Authority to allow preparation time per day of investigation meeting - Found costs awards generally modest - Found daily tariff of $3,000 for this type of case appropriate - Applicant to pay respondent $3,000 contribution to costs - No evidence provided as to disbursements - Authority unable to assess whether costs properly incurred - No award for disbursements |
| Result | Costs in favour of respondent ($3,000) |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Statutes | ERA Second Schedule cl15 |
| Cases Cited | Bradbury v Westpac Banking Corporation [2009] 3 NZLR 400;Casares v AAV New Zealand (t/a Oktober) [2011] NZERA Auckland 34;The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Tawhiwhirangi [2008] ERNZ 73;PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808;South Tranz Ltd and Ors v Strait Freight Ltd unreported, Full Court, 8 Apr 2008, CC 3/08 |
| Number of Pages | 3 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_107.pdf [pdf 25 KB] |