| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 113 |
| Determination date | 23 March 2011 |
| Member | D King |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Burch v Rush Security Services Ltd |
| Summary | COSTS – Unsuccessful personal grievance – Length of investigation meeting not specified – Respondent sought $4,130 costs – Respondent claimed put to significant cost and applicant’s claim without merit – Applicant claimed no basis for assertion – Applicant argued respondent’s claim for reimbursement of Mr Cleary’s (“C”) bill should not be allowed because C was witness – Authority found self represented parties not usually entitled to recover costs – Found possible to recover costs for legal advice – Found reasonably incurred costs did not include C’s bill - $2,000 contribution to costs appropriate |
| Result | Costs in favour of respondent ($2,000) |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Cases Cited | PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] ERNZ 808;Southern Canterbury District Health Board v Milner unreported, Palmer J, 22 May 2002, CC 9A/02 |
| Number of Pages | 2 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_113.pdf [pdf 13 KB] |