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. GQ v M Ltd [2015] NZDT 1499 (30 April 2015) [PDF, 186 KB]

    Contract / Contractual Remedies Act 1979 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Respondent approached and had meeting with Applicant regarding advertising services / Applicant signed digital record at meeting / Applicant believed he was entering into a one month agreement / Respondent understood a twelve-month agreement was signed / Applicant sought to cancel contract however due to an error Respondent continued with advertisement services / Applicant claims not liable to pay Respondent monthly invoice fees, Respondent seeks eleven months of fees / Held: Agreement signed did not specify minimum term nor was it discussed in verbal discussions / Applicant was not drawn to Respondent’s Terms of Business / Applicant only liable to pay one month of fees / Outcome: Applicant to pay $690.00 to Respondent, not liable for further eleven months
  4. BH v YH Ltd [2015] NZDT 757 (24 April 2015) [PDF, 72 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a bike online from Respondent which developed fault / stand-off between parties as to who should pay for freight to return bike to Respondent / Applicant eventually sent the bike to Respondent which discovered and repaired minor wiring fault / Applicant claimed $1,790.96 for refund of the bike, courier costs and compensation / Held: Applicant did not give Respondent opportunity to examine the bike and to repair and therefore did not have right to reject the bike / bike failed to meet guarantee of acceptable quality and Applicant is entitled to freight cost as it is cost reasonably foreseeable / Respondent liable for cost of freighting bike back to Applicant / Applicant’s claims for other consequential losses dismissed / supplier cannot contract out of Consumer Guarantees Act / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to freight bike back to Applicant and pay $90.
  6. [2015] NZSSAA 029, 22 April [PDF, 40 KB]

    2015 Social Security Appeal Authority decisions made in 2015 [2015] NZSSAA 001, February 13 Appeal against a decision to establish and recover overpayments of Domestic Purposes Benefit, Accommodation Supplement, Disability Allowance and Training Incentive Allowance. The debts were established on the basis that the appellant had been living in a relationship in the nature of marriage. Appeal dismissed. [2015] NZSSAA 002, February 13 Appeal against a decision to establish and recover overpayments of Domestic Purposes Benefit and Sole Parent Support paid to the appellant. Appeal dismissed. [2015] NZSSAA 047, July 6 Appeal against a decision of the Chief Executive upheld by a Benefits Review Committee declining to include payments for a Tread Climber as a disability cost in the assessment of the appellant’s Disability Allowance and/or Temporary Additional Support. Appeal allowed. [2015] NZSSAA 03, February 13 Appeal against a decision to decline applications for Unsupported Child’s Ben…
  8. [2015] NZSSAA 025, 20 April [PDF, 46 KB]

    Appeal against decision to reduce the amount of Accommodation Supplement paid to the appellant and suspend and cancel the payment of Special Benefit. The issues in this case are: (i) how the appellant’s accommodation costs should be assessed; and (ii) whether discretion should be exercised to pay him Special Benefit. The appeal as it relates to the calculation of entitlement to Accommodation Supplement is allowed. The appeal as it relates to the payment of Special Benefit is allowed. In all other respects the appeal as it relates to Special Benefit is dismissed.
  19. DA v WZ & WZW Ltd [2015] 761 (22 March 2015) [PDF, 83 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / failure to satisfy contract / Respondent is director of company listed as second Respondent / Applicant delivered motorbike to Respondent for repairs / Respondent stalled repairs for long period of time / Applicant requested return of motorbike / Respondent declined / Applicant lodged claim / Respondent returned partially assembled motorbike / Respondent did not charge for services / Applicant claims for various losses and costs incurred while motorbike was in Respondent’s possession for 20 months / Held: Applicant at all times was dealing with second Respondent as a full legal entity company / no basis for personal liability against Respondent / second Respondent failed to provide service with reasonable care and skill or complete contract in reasonable time / failure to charge does not absolve liability under Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant entitled to have motorbike serviced by another supplier and receive additional damages / claim…
  22. [2015] NZEmpC 28 Stevens v Hapag-Lloyd (NZ) Ltd [PDF, 307 KB]

    Stevens v Hapag-Lloyd (NZ) Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 28 (Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 12 March 2015) UNJUSTIFIABLE DISMISSAL – COSTS CROSS-CHALLENGE – restructuring and redeployment – plaintiff sought redundancy – redeployment option not accepted  - meaning of ‘reasonable’ alternative explored – plaintiff unsuccessful - weight to be given to Calderbank offer made in Authority – hardship not found – defendant successful.

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