SOVEREIGN LTD (OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE ASB BANK) V SMITH CA CA273/05

SOVEREIGN LTD (OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE ASB BANK) V SMITH CA CA273/05 16 March 2006IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA273/05BETWEEN SOVEREIGN LIMITED (OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE ASB BANK) Appellant AND KAYE EILEEN SMITH Respondent Hearing: 13 March 2006 Court: Glazebrook, Hammond and Cooper JJ Counsel: J E Latimer for Appellant S J Callanan for Respondent Judgment: 16 March 2006JUDGMENT OF THE COURT The appellant is directed to pay to the respondent costs of $500 and disbursements on the abandonment of the appeal. REASONS(Given by Cooper J) [1] The appellant applied under s 214(3) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 for leave to appeal to this Court against a decision of the Employment Court, delivered on 18 November 2005. Its notice of application alleged that the Employment Court had erred by failing to set off a redundancy payment against sums that the Court had awarded the respondent for lost remuneration as a result of her wrongful dismissal.[2] The appellant's notice of application was filed on 14 December 2005. By a letter dated 13 February 2006 counsel for the appellant indicated that the application for leave would no longer be pursued. [3] In the meantime counsel for the respondent had prepared and filed a notice of opposition, and according to counsel's memorandum of 15 February 2006, that had involved substantial research and work outside normal office hours. It is on that basis that the respondent seeks a substantial award of costs. The sum sought is $4,000 plus GST of $500 and disbursements of $255, a total of $4,755. [4] The issues that are to be addressed on an application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Employment Court are not complex. By s 214(3) of the Act leave may be granted if the question of law involved is one that by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision. In the case of the present application it is not apparent why substantial costs should have been incurred in considering those questions. [5] The claim for costs is well beyond what could properly be justified in the circumstances. Even if the application had been pursued to a defended hearing at which the respondent had been successful, it is unlikely that an award would have been made in the sum now sought, having regard to the issues involved and the time that would be needed to argue them. Here, where the appellant has, comparatively early, indicated that the application for leave would not be pursued, we do not consider that an award of costs greater than $500, together with disbursements, would be justified. [6] Accordingly, it is ordered that the appellant pay to the respondent the sum of $500 costs, together with disbursements of $255.Solicitors: Kensington Swan , Auckland for Appellant Lewis Callanan, Auckland for Respondent