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

  2. [2016] NZEmpC 33 Lewis v JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A [PDF, 166 KB]

    [2016] NZEmpC 33 Lewis v JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A (Costs judgment of Chief Judge GL Colgan of 7 April 2016) COSTS ON APPLICATION FOR STRIKE-OUT –settlement offers did not address reputational issues– not a test case or novel point of law – ability to pay has never been a decisive factor – no factors justifying uplift –reasonable costs in this case ($50,000) were less than actual costs – comparison of High Court cost scale, Employment Court pilot scale and two-thirds assessment –similar result – costs of $36,667 plus disbursements awarded to defendant
  5. [2016] NZEmpC 24 Myatt (Labour Inspector) v Pacific Appliances Limited [PDF, 90 KB]

    [2016] NZEmpC 24 Myatt (Labour Inspector)  v Pacific Appliances Limited -(Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 21 March 2016) FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ORDERS – Application by Labour Inspector pursuant to s140(6) of Employment Relations Act 2000 – seeks fine for failure to comply with orders from Employment Relations Authority – failure to remediate breaches of minimum standards of employment pursuant to issued Improvement Notice – no objection to the Notice – by evidence and documents produced Court satisfied that defendant failed to pay penalty and filing fees order by the Authority – factors to be taken into account when determining sanctions discussed – disregard and obstructive behaviour shown by defendant – high level of culpability – need to denounce behaviour – need for deterrence – Held, defendant fined $15,000 – defendant to make contribution to costs of Ministry of Justice as well as costs of the plaintiff.
  9. DT v VG [2016] NZDT 939 (23 March 2016) [PDF, 125 KB]

    Negligence / car collision / Applicant and Respondent had a side-on collision as Respondent changed lanes to the left, then came back to the right, colliding with Applicant’s vehicle / Held: Respondent fully moved into left lane as damage to Applicant’s car extends the entire left side which is not possible to occur if both vehicles are partially occupying same lane / Respondent liable in negligence for damage to Applicant’s car as did not ensure it was safe to change lanes back to the right / Applicant did not contribute to the impact / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,606.35 for repair and rental car costs
  10. [2016] NZEmpC 26 Ale v Kids At Home Limited [PDF, 86 KB]

    [2016] NZEmpC 26 Ale v Kids At Home Limited (Costs Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 22 March 2016) COSTS – cl 19 of sch 3 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 – reg 68(1) of the Employment Court Regulations 2000 – discretion to award costs is broad, to be exercised judicially and in accordance with principle – costs follow the event – starting point of 66 per cent of actual and reasonable costs incurred – factors to justify an increase or decrease assessed – Held, defendant to pay plaintiff contribution to costs of $2,100, as well as $300 contribution to costs in seeking costs and $322.84 disbursements.
  11. [2016] NZEmpC 27 Henderson v Nelson Marlborough DHB [PDF, 109 KB]

    [2016] NZEmpC 27 Henderson v Nelson Marlborough DHB - (Interlocutory Judgment of B A  Judge Corkill, 22 March 2016) COSTS APPLICATIONS – SERVICE OF STATEMENT OF CLAIM – two separate proceedings – email accepted as method of service of statement of claim in relation to one challenge but not the other – whether each challenge constituted separate proceedings – reg 28 of the Employment Court Regulations 2000 – on plain ordinary meaning of notice given by defendant the advice for method of service was limited to only one proceeding –  plaintiff should have adopted an alternative means of service when indicated at outset – Held, no costs awarded.
  12. [2016] NZEmpC 22 Keerithi Merennage v Ritchies Transport Holdings Limited [PDF, 182 KB]

    [2016] NZEmpC 22 Keerithi Merennage v Ritchies Transport Holdings Limited - (Judgment of Judge Christina  Inglis, 17 March 2016) COSTS – cl 19 sch 3 Employment Relations Act 2000 – reg 68(1) Employment Court Regulations 2000 – discretion to award costs is to be exercised judicially and in accordance with principle – costs follow event - usual starting point of 66 per cent of actual and reasonable costs incurred – factors justifying increase or decrease from starting point considered – discussion regarding whether GST is to be awarded – Held, plaintiff to pay defendant $33,000 contribution to costs, together with disbursements.
  15. [2016] NZEmpC 20 Roy v Board of Trustees of Tamaki College [PDF, 522 KB]

    [2016] NZEmpC 20 Roy v Board of Trustees of Tamaki College (Judgment of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 14 March 2016) UNJUSTIFIED CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL CLAIM - witness credibility – whether employer’s actions were justifiable – good faith obligations in employment – whether settlement barred plaintiff pursuing grievance - s 238 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 – observations on human rights in employment, religion in state schools and employer’s lawful directions – parties settled plaintiff’s claims to relief upon resignation - plaintiff’s claim is barred from consideration – if not barred from consideration plaintiff was not dismissed constructively and unjustifiably – plaintiff’s contributory conduct would have significantly reduced remedies – reinstatement impractical – Held, claim unsuccessful – defendant entitled to costs.
  16. [2016] NZEmpC 19 O'Shea (Labour Inspector) v Pekanga O Te Awa Farms Ltd [PDF, 247 KB]

    [2016] NZEmpC 19 O'Shea (Labour Inspector) v Pekanga O Te Awa Farms Ltd - (Judgment of Judge Corkill, 11 March 2016) CHALLENGE – QUANTUM OF PENALTY – whether more significant penalty should be imposed given multiple breaches of Minimum Wage Act 1983 and Holidays Act 2003 - appropriate to assess penalties in respect of each breach - necessary to consider totality of individual breaches to ensure proportionate outcome – not appropriate to impose global penalty – multiplicity of breaches aggravating factor - mitigating factors considered – Held, Respondent to pay $4,500 to the Crown - no order as to costs.
  18. [2016] NZEmpC 18 Saomai v Prestige Demolition Services Ltd [PDF, 122 KB]

    [2016] NZEmpC 18 Saomai v Prestige Demolition Services Ltd - (29 February 2016, Chief Judge Colgan) REFUSAL OF WITHOUT NOTICE FREEZING ORDER - REASONS FOR JUDGMENT –- no reference to applicant’s obligation to fully disclose all material facts including possible defences and information casting doubt on applicant’s ability to discharge obligations created by an undertaking as to damages –  no indication of proceedings having been filed or to be filed in the Authority pursuant to the Court’s Practice Direction on search and freezing orders - no mention in papers as to property to which a freezing order may have attached -  no draft order for consideration of Court - application did not specify any information about type of injunctive relief sought- there was no proposed duration of the order or other arrangements whereby the matter could be back before the Court after service on respondent - not possible to discern the terms of the order sought – no order relating to costs.
  19. [2016] NZEmpC 16 Best Health Products Ltd v Nee [PDF, 172 KB]

    [2016] NZEmpC 16 Best Health Products Ltd v Nee - (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 26 February 2016) CHALLENGE TO COSTS DETERMINATION – APPLICATION FOR COSTS – Court has wide discretionary power to make awards – basic tenets of awarding costs discussed – issue as to how costs assessed when both parties have measure of success – amount awarded was within range of outcomes open to Authority – Applicant did not discharge onus to persuade Court that Authority determination was wrong –whether costs to be awarded for unsuccessful application for leave – sixty-six per cent of costs actually and reasonably incurred was upheld – Calderbank sum exceeded amount awarded so not relevant - held, challenge dismissed – respondent entitled to costs of $1,800, costs for leave application of $2270 and for costs with regard to her submission in sum of $500.
  20. [2016] NZEmpC 15 Holman v CTC Aviation Training (NZ) Ltd interlocutory [PDF, 87 KB]

    [2016] NZEmpC 15 Holman v CTC Aviation Training (NZ) Ltd (Interlocutory judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 26 February 2016) RE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND STATEMENT OF DEFENCE – principles for granting leave discussed – discretion to be exercised to best achieve justice – must be basis for court to exercise discretion – must weigh injustice to parties – reasons for not making application for setting down to be considered – whether irreparable damage will be suffered by applicant if order declined – Held, application for leave to amend statement of defence granted – order for costs against defendant – quantum of costs to be determined
  21. [2016] NZEmpC 17 NZ Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc v AFFCO NZ Ltd [PDF, 126 KB]

    [2016] NZEmpC 17 NZ Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc v AFFCO (NZ) Ltd - (Interlocutory Judgment of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 26 February 2016) DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE TRIAL OF TWO CAUSES OF ACTION – encouraged private mediation – timetable for parties to file documents with Court discussed – logical order of hearing the different proceedings discussed – telephone directions conference set – two sitting weeks set aside - costs reserved.
  23. CZ-v-XA-2016-NZDT-894-25-February-2016 [PDF, 68 KB]

    Negligence / car collision / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, r 7.2 / Applicant’s insurance company claimed against Respondent for repairs / HELD: Respondent created hazard and caused the collision by opening car door / therefore, Tribunal found Respondent was negligent having breached duty of care owed to Applicant / repair costs quoted and actual repairs undertaken consistent with damage / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay insurance company $1,708.72

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