Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant entered into franchise agreement with Respondent / Applicant paid territory fee and part of establishment fee with the rest loaned from Respondent / Dispute arose when Applicant claimed Respondent failed to provide guaranteed income and to allocate sufficient work / Respondent disputed that and cancelled contract / Applicant claimed paid fees and costs incurred / Respondent counterclaimed for unpaid royalty fees and balance of establishment loan / Held: parties bound by signed agreement / Applicant only entitled to be paid shortfall at annual anniversary / Applicant only worked six weeks so not yet entitled to shortfall / Respondent’s refusal to provide Applicant with sufficient work breached  contract / Respondent did not have grounds to cancel agreement as no evidence Applicant did not perform allocated work / Applicant only entitled to refund of fees paid and costs incurred / Respondent unable to claim for unpaid payments a…

[2025] NZEmpC 110 Oliver v Biggs (Costs Judgment of Judge KG Smith, 30 May 2025) COSTS ON DISCONTINUANCE - GUIDELINE SCALE - presumption that plaintiff is liable for costs on discontinuance is partially displaced - costs awarded to plaintiff up to date where further steps became unnecessary.

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

Objections to valuations by Council - Rating Valuations Act 1998, s 36 – Land Valuation Proceedings Act 1948, s 19(8)(b) - Valuation agreed by consent – No costs order.

Contract law / Respondent requested Applicant to provide prices for arborist services / Applicant provided prices for work comprised of two stages / Stage 1 had fixed price for site visit and preparatory work / Stage 2 charged on hourly basis / Applicant stated they were unable to provide any estimates on time required / Respondent approved Applicant to commence stage 1 works but disputed they approved stage 2 / Applicant claimed $27,220.50 for unpaid invoices / Held: Respondent instructed Applicant to undertake further work after site visit and those fell under stage 2 / Hourly rate and basis for charging were clear / Contract formed when Respondent instructed Applicant to perform further work / Contract did not require acceptance to be in particular form / Applicant not required to declare work entered stage 2 / Respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence Applicant either charged unreasonably or excessively for work undertaken / Claim allowed.

[2025] NZEmpC 106 Burgess v Tutton Sienko and Hill Partnership (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge KG Smith, 28 May 2025) SECURITY FOR COSTS – financial circumstances of respondent favoured application – respondent was bankrupt reasonably recently – liable for a substantial Authority costs order – security ordered at 50% of likely scale costs to balance interests of both parties

Professional responsibilities and professional practice / adviser deliberately and dishonestly failed to disclose role in two visa applications, but sought to ensure communications were directed to her / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s442 / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1 cl5, cl7, cl14, cl18a, cl20a, cl22, cl26c, cl26d / adviser sought to hide involvement in visa applications from INZ due to conflict of interest / deliberately and dishonestly provided false email address for applicants / untruthfully represented existence of two jobs with husband’s company which ultimately formed basis for grant of visa / absence of written services agreements / no provision of evidence of being licensed / failed to provide opportunity to review applications / failed to disclose conflict in writing / no record of written advice / no well-managed filing system / no provision of invoices / withheld services for failure to pay / excessive fees / complaint partially upheld / sanctions to follow

Contract / Applicant parked vehicle on private property and was charged by Respondent with parking enforcement fees / Applicant paid $95 fee / Applicant claimed non-liability for $415.59 amount sought by Respondent / Held: no contract formed between the parties / No offer was made through Respondent's sign which in effect prohibits parking and terms were uncertain / Driver is trespassing where a private parking space is clearly signposted with a warning about the consequences of unauthorised parking and yet a driver still chooses to park there / $95 reasonable penalty payment / Other charges are not reasonable / Applicant not liable to pay $415.59 to Respondent / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent were drivers involved in a collision on a rural highway / Police reporting indicated the Respondent was not travelling to the conditions and crossed the centre line / Respondent disputed liability / Applicant claimed $19,000.00, being the value of his vehicle, towing costs and loss of income / Held: Respondent liable in negligence for causing the collision/ Respondent would not have lost control and crossed the centre if she had been driving to the conditions / Compensation for vehicle price, towing, and loss income was reasonable  / Applicant was able to sell the wreck for $700 so that was deducted from the costs sought / Respondent ordered to pay $17,724.08 to Respondent / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Education / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant is training organisation / Applicant entered into an agreement with Respondent to provide training course / Course fees were $2,547,53 / Applicant claimed Respondent failed to pay fees / Applicant stated training advisor advised that Respondent had to put course on hold as he was busy / Respondent had actually lost his job and failed to receive notifications from Applicant / Applicant sought order that Respondent was liable to pay $2,547,53 / Held: not satisfied that Applicant advised Respondent of all his options when he lost his job / Applicant failed to deliver its services with reasonable skill and care / Likely that Respondent could have withdrawn from course and reduced his liability if advised that was an option / Respondent’s obligation to pay any more than half of fees was a loss suffered as a result of the Applicant’s failure / Respondent ordered to pay $1,273.77 / Claim allowed in part.

[2025] NZEmpC 101 Lu v Young (Judgment (No 2) of Judge Kathryn Beck, 20 May 2025) COSTS – scale costs awarded following challenge being dismissed

Consumer law / Applicant claims compensation following subcontracting installation to Respondent / Wallpaper started peeling off wall in 6 months / Held: Wallpaper failed likely due to insufficient preparation in sizing and sanding / No inherent issue with wallpaper itself / Respondent liable for the cost of the remedy / Claim for costs dismissed as it does not meet criteria for exceptions / Claim allowed / Respondent to pay Applicant $10,722.18.