recieved reply 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

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
Hannah Sullivan HR Telecom instruction person to lawyer John Rooney
John Rooney Telecoms legal representative partner in Simpson Grierson









IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY AUCKLAND
AA 187A/lO
5294885
BETWEEN PAUL EVANS-MCLEOD
Applicant
AND TELECOM NEW ZEALAND
LIMITED
First Respondent
AND BRIDGETTE DALZELL
Second Respondent
AND MICHELLE YOUNG
Third Respondent
AND SHAUN HOULT
Fourth Respondent

Member of Authority: Vicki Campbell

Representatives: Applicant in Person

John Rooney for Respondent

Submissions Received: 24 May from Applicant

20 May from Respondent

Determination: 1 June 2010


COSTS DETERMINATION OF THE AUTHORITY


[1] In a determination dated 26 April 2010 the Authority determined two preliminary matters. The first matter was the correct identity of the Respondent. I held that Telecom was Mr Evans-McLeod’s employer and not the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents.


[2] The second matter was determined in Telecom’s favour when I held that the Authority had no jurisdiction to investigate Mr Evans-McLeod’s personal grievance in light of the Record of Settlement entered into by the parties.
[3] In my determination I reserved the question of costs and encouraged to parties to settle this matter between them. They have been unable to do so and I am now in receipt of memorandum from both parties.


[4] Telecom submits that while the investigation lasted under half a day the claims by Mr Evans-McLeod were bound to fail. Also, that Mr Evans-McLeod’s approach to disclosure resulted in Telecom incurring far more costs than it should have in preparing for the Investigation Meeting. Telecom submits that the conduct of the applicant in conducting his case warrants an award of costs above the notional daily rate and seeks a contribution of $3,000 plus disbursements of $401.48.


5 In his submissions Mr. Evans-McLeod notes that he has been without employment for nine months and is currently in receipt of a WINZ benefit. Mr. Evans-McLeod also asks the Authority to take into account his health issues which is causing concern for himself and his family.


[6] I accept the submissions from Telecom that Mr Evans- McLeod’s approach to this case caused it to incur significantly more costs than would ordinarily have been required. However as set out in PBO Ltd ~ormer1y Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cru:’ costs are not to be used as a punishment or as an expression of disapproval of an unsuccessful party’s conduct.


[7] Having regard to the matter before the Authority and in the principled exercise of my discretion I order Mr Evans-McLeod to pay to Telecom New Zealand Limited the amount of $1,500.00 as costs plus disbursements of $401.48.





Vicki Campbell
Member of Employment Relations Authority

well this ends this part of my case with the employment court i gave it my best shot but form the outset it was a David and Goliath struggle but one that had to be fought