From 3 June 2025 the Employment Court will start publishing its judgments from 24 hours after the delivery date, or the next business day, unless otherwise directed by a judge. Decisions of public interest may be published earlier, as directed by a judge.

You can search by selecting a jurisdiction, a keyword (for example a name) or browse by year.

Some jurisdictions only publish a selection of decisions. Identifying details may be removed.

Search results for costs.

3069 items matching your search terms

  1. ER v UI Ltd [2017] NZDT 998 (16 February 2017) [PDF, 130 KB]

    Guarantee / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant enrolled in course of study and paid fees to Respondent institution / Applicant withdrew from course 11 days after its commencement / Applicant claimed he could not understand lecturer and lecturer’s teaching style was poor / enrolment form provided for a refund of fees if withdrawal was within 8 days of course commencing or there were exceptional circumstances / Applicant claimed reason for withdrawing was exceptional and Respondent failed its guarantee as to service provided / Applicant claimed refund of fees / Held: no failure of guarantee / inadequate evidence to prove failure / Respondent provided service with reasonable care and skill and service was fit for purpose / circumstances not exceptional / claim dismissed
  2. [2017] NZEmpC 11 Matsuoka v LSG Sky Chefs Ltd [PDF, 173 KB]

    [2017] NZEmpC 11 Matsuoka v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge M E Perkins in respect of 1) Application for wasted costs order; 2) first amended application for further and better discovery in respect of electronic documents etc, 15 February 2017) APPLICATION FOR WASTED COSTS ORDER – APPLICATION FOR FURTHER AND BETTER DISCOVERY – prior hearing concerning outstanding applications adjourned due to amended statement of claim – wasted costs could have been avoided by informing opposing counsel and Court of amended pleadings – $10,000 wasted costs ordered against plaintiff –case law and factors relevant to further discovery considered – existence of further documents speculative – discovery process disproportionate to claim – plaintiff’s further discovery application declined – further particular discovery of certain documents ordered.
  3. HD v RWW Ltd [2017] NZDT 1032 (15 February 2017) [PDF, 107 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent which had serious engine issues & was uneconomic to repair / whether vehicle sold privately or ‘in trade’ / whether vehicle of acceptable quality & what, if any, remedies available / Held: Respondent sold several vehicles a year so ‘in trade’ / vehicle not of acceptable quality as not free from defects & reasonable consumer would not regard it as acceptable given price paid & statement it was in ‘mint condition’ / failure substantial so Applicant entitled to full refund as well as any foreseeable losses resulting from failure / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4839.88 & Applicant to make vehicle available for pick up within three weeks of amount being received / claim allowed
  14. [2016] NZEmpC 167 Labour Inspector v Tech 5 Recruitment Ltd [PDF, 250 KB]

    [2016] NZEmpC 167 A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Tech 5 Recruitment (Judgment of the Full Court, 16 December, 2016) PREMIUMS – whether employment agreements contained premium clause – s 12A Wages Protection Act – the meaning of “premium” defined – trade-testing costs were premium – employment agreements containing obligations to pay are “seeking a premium” – challenge successful.
  15. [2016] NZEmpC 166 Alim v Sky Chefs NZ Ltd [PDF, 537 KB]

    [2016] NZEmpC 166 Nisha Alim v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd (Interlocutory Judgment (No 22) of Judge B A Corkill, 14 December 2016) APPLICATION FOR JOINDER – history behind joinder proceedings surveyed – principles for awarding costs against non-parties considered – evidence linking third party to direct involvement in issues surrounding litigation – guiding mind – evidence of attempts to remove company from Register to avoid liability for costs – availability of security for costs not a reason to deny costs order against “real” party – third parties joined.
  17. EP v UK LTD & UKU LTD 2016 NZDT 893 (7 December 2016) [PDF, 137 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant delivered vehicle to the first Respondent for repair / first Respondent repaired vehicle and issued invoice to Applicant / Applicant paid part of invoice amount / first Respondent asked second Respondent to look at vehicle due to a further problem / second Respondent gave preliminary diagnosis but received no further instructions from first Respondent / vehicle delivered back to Applicant after some months / Applicant claimed original issue not resolved, vehicle not driveable and had cosmetic issues / Applicant claimed refund of amount paid, declaration of non-liability for balance of amount invoiced and compensation for tow, registration, insurance and repair costs / Held: Applicant did not have a contractual relationship with second Respondent / second Respondent not contractually liable to Applicant / first Respondent did not perform service with reasonable care and skill / first Respondent had Applicant’s car in their possession f…
  20. CR v TN LCRO 54/2014 (23 November 2016) [PDF, 75 KB]

    Lawyer issued proceedings personally against another lawyer and his client alleging maintenance / champerty, abuse of process, unlawful conspiracy to injure and defamation. The other lawyer had previously complained about the first lawyer, and those complaints were part of charges brought against the first lawyer before the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal. The complainant (second lawyer) alleged the first lawyer had commenced proceedings for the purpose of intimidating him and his client, and to gain discovery of his files. Standards Committee agreed, and found unsatisfactory conduct by reason of breach of r 2.3 CCCR ( legal processes to be used for proper purposes only.) Committee also found breaches of rr10 and 13.2. Applicant argued that the CCCR did not apply because he was not providing regulated services. LCRO agreed the lawyer was not providing regulated services, but CCCR apply according to their terms - EA v ABO LCRO 237/2010 applied. LCRO reversed finding of un…
  24. [2016] NZEmpC 151 Carr, Labour Inspector v Sharma [PDF, 204 KB]

    [2016] NZEmpC 151 Darren Brett Carr, Labour Inspector v Vishaal Kumar Sharma (Sentencing Notes of Judge M E Perkins, 17 November 2016) OBSTRUCTING A LABOUR INSPECTOR – GUILTY PLEA – SENTENCING – s 235 charge - guilty plea entered  –criminal jurisdiction of Employment Court and Sentencing Act applies – principles of sentencing applied –factors to be considered in discharge without conviction – discharge without conviction - $500 towards costs ordered against defendant.

You can try using these keywords to search the whole site.