| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2011] NZERA Christchurch 99 |
| Determination date | 08 July 2011 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Pro-Sure Insurance and Global Insurance Placements Ltd v Pratt and Anor |
| Other Parties | Vision Insurance (South Island) Ltd |
| Summary | COSTS – Unsuccessful restraint of trade application – Length of investigation meeting not specified – First respondent sought $12,850 contribution to costs or indemnity costs – No costs submissions received from applicant – First respondent claimed entitled to higher than usual cost award due to unusual nature of proceeding – First respondent claimed hearing protracted by applicant and included change of solicitor at last minute – First respondent claimed applicant’s claim misguided – First respondent claimed attempted settlement of substantive matter and costs – Found first respondent took all reasonable steps to constrain scope of hearing – Found costs would have been greatly reduced had applicant’s case been undertaken with same efficiency as first respondent’s – Found applicant’s claim confused which caused protracted process – Found first respondent attempted to settle costs at very modest level – Applicant to pay $10,000 contribution to first respondent’s costs |
| Result | Costs in favour of respondent ($10,000) |
| Main Category | Costs |
| Cases Cited | Graham v Airways Corporation of New Zealand Ltd [2004] 7 NZELC 97,421;PBO Ltd v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808;Post Haste Couriers Ltd v Casey unreported, Holland J, 24 Oct 1989, CP 83/89 |
| Number of Pages | 4 |
| PDF File Link: | 2011_NZERA_Christchurch_99.pdf [pdf 15 KB] |