Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

[2026] NZEmpC 57 Kour v Naidu (judgment of Judge JC Holden, 25 March 2026) ENFORCEMENT OF COMPLIANCE ORDER – respondent has failed to comply with compliance order made by Authority – fine is an appropriate sanction – $12,000 fine awarded, with $7,000 to be paid to plaintiff – costs and disbursements awarded on discretionary basis

Objection to valuations by Council – Rating Valuations Act 1998, s 36 – Objection withdrawn by consent – No issue as to costs

Objection to valuations by Council – Rating Valuations Act 1998, s 36 – Valuation agreed by consent – No costs order

[2026] NZEmpC 52 Jenner v Corrections Association of New Zealand Inc [Costs judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 18 March 2026) GUIDELINE SCALE – Court previously assigned proceedings as category 2, band B – assignment remains appropriate – conduct insufficient to justify an uplift – scale costs awarded.

[2026] NZEmpC 49 Berryman v Fonterra Cooperative Group Ltd (Costs Judgment of Judge M S King, 17 March 2026) GUIDELINE SCALE – undue hardship of unsuccessful party is a factor in exercising discretion – financial hardship is not decisive – scale costs awarded with adjustments.

Objections to valuations by Council – Rating Valuations Act 1998, s 36 – Valuation agreed by consent – No costs order

[2026] NZEmpC 44 Bonsu-Maro t/a EBM Models v Smythe (Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 11 March 2026) DE NOVO CHALLENGE – COSTS – Authority correctly referred to jurisdiction and legal principles – exceptional conduct justifying uplift – successful party put to further expense – financial circumstances of unsuccessful party insufficient to displace successful party’s entitlement to costs – uplift of 75 percent reasonable – application dismissed

Sanctions / adviser found liable for four breaches of professional standards, including rubber stamping and charging excessive fees / supervisor found liable for one breach for failure to exercise due care and diligence in allowing extravagant fee / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s3, s50, s51 / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1, cl2e, cl12c, cl17b, cl17c, cl18b, cl20a / direct engagement a fundamental obligation of advisers / excessive fee was approximately twice the upper end of market rate / adviser’s gravity of wrongdoing moderate / supervisor’s gravity of wrongdoing regarding excessive fee at upper end of low / neither adviser nor supervisor acknowledged wrongdoing, nor offered apology or indicated remorse / no evidence of improved practices / adviser gave untruthful evidence at hearing / first disciplinary findings / adviser was inexperienced and provisionally licensed / adviser censured, required to undergo training, and fined $4,000 / supervisor cautioned and fined $1,500

[2026] NZEmpC 43 Lone Pine Farms Limited v Jenkins (Consent Judgment of Judge Helen Doyle, 6 March 2026) proceedings settled and discontinued by consent.  No issue as to costs.  Orders made following Judicial Settlement Conference. 

[2026] NZEmpC 39 Youtap v Johnston (judgment of Judge JC Holden, 5 March 2026) COSTS – scale costs awarded – disbursements claimed awarded – expert evidence reasonably required

Professional responsibilities and professional practice / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s442 / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1, cl4(a), cl5, cl6, cl17b, cl18b, cl19l and cl20a / adviser failed to send draft application to client before filing with INZ / relied on recruitment company to review application with client / failed to obtain written authority from client to disclose personal information to recruiting  company / assurance from third party that it has authority from client insufficient / failed to explain professional obligations and significant matters in agreement / failed to disclose conflict of interest / tripartite agreement with recruitment company created potential conflict which required disclosure and client’s written consent / adviser’s fees excessive / applications were uncomplicated and did not warrant fee significantly beyond market range / ‘no win, no fee’ model lawful but did not justify steep elevation in fee / complaint upheld / sanctions to follow

Objections to valuations by Council – Rating Valuations Act 1998, s 36 – Valuation agreed by consent – No costs order.

[2026] NZEmpC 29 Lopez v Kāriki Pharma Ltd (in liq) (Interlocutory Judgment (No 3) of Judge Kathryn Beck, 23 February 2026)APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FURTHER EVIDENCE – failure to exercise due diligence – evidence relevant and directly material to a disputed fact – late admission prejudicial – opposing party to be provided with an opportunity to respond – permitting evidence consistent with equity and good conscience – lack of timeliness to be addressed in costs – application granted.