Restrictions OK
Jurisdiction Employment Relations Authority - Auckland
Reference No [2011] NZERA Auckland 510
Determination date 01 December 2011
Member K J Anderson
Representation M Talbot (in person) ; K Thompson, R McCabe
Location Auckland
Parties Talbot v Air New Zealand and Anor
Other Parties New Zealand Air Line Pilots Association Industrial Union of Workers Inc
Summary COSTS – Unsuccessful dispute – Half day investigation meeting – First respondent sought $5,000 contribution to costs – First respondent claimed higher costs award appropriate because applicant rejected reasonable offer, applicant provided excessive evidence and second respondent became involved – Second respondent sought $1,500 contribution to costs – Applicant referred Authority to general principle that costs should lie where they fall in interpretation disputes – Authority found first respondent’s offer could not be seen as offer consistent with usual Calderbank principles as matter concerned interpretation of document rather than prospective monetary remedies – Found nothing extraordinary about case that warranted increase to daily tariff – Found inappropriate for costs to lie where they fall because dispute more about applicant’s dissatisfaction with respondents views on standard of hotel accommodation than parties agreeing it could be useful to have third party interpret agreement – Found no costs award appropriate for second respondent because represented by in house counsel and had minimal involvement in proceedings – Applicant to pay $1,500 contribution to respondent’s costs
Result Costs in favour of first respondent ($1,500) ; No order for costs (second respondent)
Main Category Costs
Statutes ERA s129
Cases Cited Bluestar Print Group (NZ) Ltd v Mitchell [2010] ERNZ 446;Health Waikato Ltd v Elmsly [2004] ERNZ 172;PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] ERNZ 808;Talbot v Air New Zealand and Anor [2011] NZERA Auckland 336
Number of Pages 4
PDF File Link: 2011_NZERA_Auckland_510.pdf [pdf 19 KB]