| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 204 |
| Determination date | 13 May 2011 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | N Pollett (in person) ; D Pine |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Pollett v Browns Real Estate Ltd |
| Summary | COSTS – Unsuccessful jurisdiction claim – Investigation meeting less than one day – Respondent sought $15,000 contribution to costs plus disbursements – Respondent claimed notional daily tariff should be increased because applicant warned of significance of contractor’s written agreement, applicant failed to provide legal argument, applicant’s argument lacked clarity, increasing respondent’s costs, and applicant made allegations about matters outside Authority’s jurisdiction – Applicant claimed costs should lie where they fall – Applicant claimed respondent refusing mediation was unreasonable and applicant in no position to pay respondent’s costs – Authority found daily tariff amount should be adjusted upwards as applicant was warned contractor’s written agreement barrier to claim – Noted lack of clarity of applicant’s argument, allegations outside Authority’s jurisdiction and respondent’s refusal to mediate irrelevant to costs award – Found applicant’s ability to pay relevant consideration but no supporting evidence of inability to pay provided by applicant – Applicant to pay respondent contribution towards costs – Authority found counsel’s travel costs should not be reimbursed as respondent could have instructed other counsel - Applicant to pay respondent for manager’s flight and accommodation costs |
| Result | Costs in favour of respondent ($5,000) ; Disbursements in favour of respondent ($520)(travel and accommodation) |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Cases Cited | PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] ERNZ 808 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_204.pdf [pdf 14 KB] |