memorandom as to costs

This blog has been in play for some months. To gain the full story, go to left hand side "blog archive" go to bottom post of January with same title as this Blog and read upwards









They take a long time to just to say they didn’t agree with my view on the costs plus add some smart patronising comments about the validity of my claim

Note the instructing officer is Hannah Sullivan she is from hr telecom note they telecom on her instructions are quite happy to put the knife in this lady hasn’t lived on the earth for as long as I have served Telecom makes a complete mockery out of being loyal doesn’t it HR is not our friend the kids in there lack compassion empathy it a wonder they can sleep at night


.its becoming a common occurrence to be greeted in the street by current and old work mates who are so glad that i have taken telecom on and not to put too fine a piont on it they are or have had a complete guts full of telecom and thiers views on management are of complete disgust how bloody surprising






UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ACT 2000


BEFORE THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY AT AUCKLAND
5294885
BETWEEN PAUL EVANS-MCLEOD
Applicant
AND TELECOM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED, BRIDGETTE
DALZELL, MICHELLE YOUNG and SHAUN HOULT
Respondents




MEMORANDUM OF COUNSEL AS TO COSTS
DATED 19 MAY 2010
RECEIVED
24 MAY 2U10
ER Authority - Auckland


MAY IT PLEASE THE AUTHORITY:


1. THE respondents apply to the Authority for an order that the applicant pay a reasonable contribution to their legal costs following the Authority’s determination in Paul Evans4tñcLeod v Telecom New Zealand Limited and Ors (AA 187/10, 26 April 2010, V Campbell).


Background


2. IN this case, the applicant sought to bring a personal grievance comprising various claims against the respondents. The personal grievance was in relation to matters that had been concluded under a mediated settlement agreement. The Authority directed it would first determine whether it had jurisdiction to investigate the applicant’s personal grievance and whether the second, third and fourth respondents were the applicant’s employer.


3. THE Authority determined that it did not have jurisdiction to investigate the applicant’s personal grievance. The Authority determined that both parties “freely entered into the final and binding Record of Settlement” (at paragraph 24 of the determination) and that “Mr Evans-McLeod is statute barred by section 149(3) of the [Employment Relations] Act from pursuing a personal grievance” (paragraph 26).


4. THE Authority also stated, at paragraph 25 of its determination, that there was no evidence that the ~p~ca1s peuson~ ~ievaice h~J aw substantive merit.


5. THE Authority declined to allow the applicant to pursue his personal grievance.


COSTS APPLICATION


Attempt to resolve costs with applicant
6. THE Authority invited the parties to reach an agreement between
themselves on the issue of costs (paragraph 27 of the Determinabon).
7. IN a letter to the applicant’s representative dated 10 May 2010, the respondents attempted to resolve the issue of costs between the parties. The parties have not been able to reach an agreement.


8. THE respondents therefore apply to the Authority for an order that the applicant pay a reasonable contribution to their legal costs.


Legal principles


9. PURSUANT to clause 15, Schedule 2 of the Employment Relations Act

2000, the Authority has the power to award costs to the respondent in any amount which it thinks is reasonable.


10. THE principles relating to awards of costs in the Authority are well settled (see PBO. Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] ERNZ 808). The principles outlined by the Full Court in the Da Cruz case included the following:


a) There is a discretion as to whether costs will be awarded and in what amount;


b) Conduct which increased costs unnecessarily can be taken into account in inflating or reducing an award;


C) Costs generally follow the event;


d) Frequently costs are judged against a notional daily rate; and


e) The nature of the case can also influence costs.


11. AS to the notional daily rate which may be applied by the Authority, the Full Court’s view, in Da Cruz, was that this would usually be approximately $2,000 to $3,000.


12. IN a more recent decision, Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Tawhiwhirangi [2008] ERNZ 73, the Court stated that due to the passage of time since Da Cruz and other decisions, $3000 “is
most likely to be an appropriate starting point for the Authority’s tariff rather than an upper figure” (paragraph 7 of the Judgment).


Application of legal principles to facts


13. IN this case, the respondents have incurred the following costs in relation to the investigation meeting:
Fees: 13,393.00

Disbursements - Document production
(copying/printing), document
delivery and telephone calls 219.48
- Travel in order to attend
Investigation Meeting in
Hamilton 182.00 401.48
GST: 1,724.32
TOTAL: $15,518.80


Copies of Simpson Grierson’s invoices for its legal services in the period to 30 April 2010 is annexed to this Memorandum and marked “A”.


14. THE investigation meeting in this case lasted under half a day. The hearing was on claims that were statute banned and clearly bound to fail. Further, the applicant’s approach to discovery was improper and resulted in the respondents incurring far more costs than they should have done in preparing for the investigation meeting.


15. IT is submitted that the unmeritorious nature of the applicant’s case and the conduct of the applicant in relation to the case warrant an award of costs above the amount suggested by the notional daily rate.
16. SO it is submitted that an order for costs in the sum of $3,000 plus GST and disbursements of $401.48 is reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.


DATED this 20th day of May 2010





J D Rooney/J M Ren e’
Counsel for the Resp ndent
















GST on above
1,182.63
$10,643.63
/ /
Simpson Grierson
TAX INVOICE


Telecom New Zealand Limited

March 31, 2010
Account Reference 429446-2005652
Tax Invoice No. 444813
GST .Reg No 48-371-809 Ref.JDR
P0 Num: tba

Accounts Payable
P0 Box 1800
WELLINGTON





Instructing Person: Hannah Sullivan


Employment Advice
Purchase Order tba



OUR FEE

9,321.00

Disbursements
Document production, delivery and telephone calls
Net GST
140 17.50
140 17.50

1.182.63
GST ON ABOVE




10643.63



Fees billed life to date:
Fee Estimate:
Amount to Estimate:
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00





Payments by Direct Credit to account 030104 0943847 00.
Reference to accompany payment: 429446 - 2005652 -444813.









THIS ACCOUNT IS NOW DUE FOR PAYMENT


BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS

AUCKLAND: 88 Shortland Street, Private Bag 92518, Auckland, New Zealand.




TAX INVOICE
Telecom New Zealand Limited April 30, 2010
Accounts Payable Account Reference 429446-2005652
P 0 Box 1800 Tax Invoice No. 447327





Instructing Person: Hannah Sullivan


Employment Advice
Purchase Order 4500778316
OUR FEE 4,072.00
Disbursements Net GST
Document production, delivery and telephone calls 79.48 9.94
Local Travel 182.00 22.75
261.48 32.69
261.48
GSTon above 541.69
$4,875.17



Fees billed life to date: $9,321.00
Fee Estimate: $0.00
Amount to Estimate: $-9,321.00




Payments by Direct Credit to account 030104 0943847 00.
Reference to accompany payment: 429446 - 2005652 - 447327.








THIS ACCOUNT IS NOW DUE FOR PAYMENT

Page 1
BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS

AUCKLAND: 88 Shortland Street, Private Bag 92518, Auckland, New Zealand.



Current telecom participants
Bridgette Dalzell current head of outsourced customer care at telecom New Zealand whom is Michelle Young's direct report at time of incident
Michelle Young call center manager Hamilton call center, whom is Shaun Hoults direct report at time of incidents

Shaun Hoult team manager weekend team Sat-Tues Hamilton

Iain Galloway HR representative spends a lot of time in Hamilton