| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Auckland 255 |
| Determination date | 16 June 2011 |
| Member | R A Monaghan |
| Representation | D Kumandan (in person) ; C Chilwell |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Kumandan v Eastzone Realty Ltd |
| Summary | COSTS – Unsuccessful personal grievance – One day investigation meeting - Respondent sought $7,500 contribution to costs – Applicant claimed costs should lie where they fall as successful on disputed evidence point and respondent did not act in good faith – Applicant claimed accepting Calderbank offer amounted to accepting was written contractor’s agreement between parties – Applicant claimed due to financial position not able to pay any costs award – Authority found as respondent successful entitled to costs – Found although applicant successful on disputed evidence point, did not mean entitled to full or partial award reduction – Noted previously determined respondent did not act in bad faith – Authority found nothing in Calderbank offer suggesting applicant accepted was contractor’s agreement however offer did not reflect respondent’s level of risk if litigation continued – Found applicant in position to pay costs award – Applicant to pay respondent $3,500 contribution towards costs |
| Result | Costs in favour of respondent ($3,500) |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Cases Cited | Challenge Realty Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [1990] 3 NZLR 42;Health Waikato Ltd v Elmsly [2004] ERNZ 172;PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] ERNZ 808;T & L Harvey Ltd v Duncan [2010] NZEMPC 36;Victoria University of Wellington v Alton-Lee [2001] ERNZ 305 |
| Number of Pages | 5 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Auckland_255.pdf [pdf 16 KB] |