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.

3429 items matching your search terms

  1. 2026] NZEmpC 28 Sakgun v Wholesale Sustainable Windows Ltd and Ors [PDF, 172 KB]

    [2026] NZEmpC 28 Sakgun v Wholesale Sustainable Windows Ltd and Ors (judgment of Judge JC Holden, 20 February 2026) APPLICATION FOR STAY – APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS – plaintiff reliant on benefit – challenge pursued in good faith – interests of parties best met by ordering a stay on the condition that a modest security is paid in respect of the Authority’s costs order – no separate order for security for costs in the Court

  2. [2026] NZEmpC 25 Wei v Sunlight JMB Future Ltd [PDF, 191 KB]

    [2026] NZEmpC 25 Wei v Sunlight JMB Future Ltd (Judgment of KG Smith 12 February 2026) APPLICATION TO DISMISS PROCEEDINGS – delay of four years and seven months – delay is well beyond what could be regarded as acceptable – respondent did not address whether delay was excusable – applicant’s ability to defend the claim is compromised by the passage of time – prejudice arising from costs of having to continue to defend the claim – application granted

  3. GF v Accident Compensation Corporation (Social Rehabilitation) [2026] NZACC 026 [PDF, 185 KB]

    Social rehabilitation - ss 81 and 84 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Appellant appealed against the Corporation's decision to decline to give the Appellant financial support to attend rehabilitation sessions at the Centre of Movement. Balancing considerations that need to be taken into account. Corporation's role to cushion effect of Appellant's brain injury not provide full restitution. Corporation's correctly declined to assist with the costs of the Appellant attending the Centre of Movement. Outcome: appeal dismissed.

  4. [2026] NZIACDT 04 - ZX v Yu (03 February 2026) [PDF, 272 KB]

    Professional responsibilities and professional practice / dishonesty / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s442 / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1, cl8a, cl8c, cl13a, cl14, cl18a, cl26e / adviser dishonestly offered residency-qualifying job in exchange for substantial payment / client had already paid significant fees for visa and supposed employment agreement / discussions involved significant staged payments, inflated salary and structured costs to facilitate residence, indicating alleged job‑selling and immigration fraud / adviser knew advice to client was in contravention of immigration and employment legislation / provided no written service agreement / failed to act under direct supervision of supervisor under conditions of provisional licence / failed to inform client of being provisionally licensed and provide evidence of licence / complaint upheld / sanctions to follow

  5. [2026] NZEmpC 15 Isher Enterprises Ltd v Arushi [PDF, 197 KB]

    [2026] NZEmpC 15 Isher Enterprises Ltd v Arushi (Interlocutory Judgment (No 2) of Judge Beck, 2 February 2026) APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS – evidence of plaintiffs’ inability to pay if unsuccessful – plaintiffs failed to comply with Authority orders ­–   conduct of the plaintiffs and overall circumstances point toward granting security for costs – equity and good conscience justify stand-alone security for costs – application granted.

  6. [2026] NZREADT 05 – EG & U Ltd v Unka (28 January 2026) [PDF, 278 KB]

    Compensation referral / unsatisfactory conduct / Committee found licensee marketed commercial property with incorrect rental return / goods and services tax (GST) specified as payable in addition to already GST-inclusive rent / Real Estate Agents Act 2008, s93, s110 / Professional Rules 2012, r5.1, r6.4 / rental return (yield) for commercial property a critical factor for purchasers / purchaser relied on representation, would have bid less knowing true yield / GST disclaimer in information memorandum does not displace express representation & does not account for errors beyond that document / settlement with vendor left unrecovered loss / no lack of care by purchaser / rent statements could not have alerted purchaser as it did not specify whether GST inclusive / legal costs negotiating with vendors not caused by agent’s wrongdoing, not awarded / general damages dismissed / licensee ordered to pay $46,875 (total loss of $62,500 reduced by 25 per cent as conduct not deliberate)

  7. [2026] NZEmpC 5 South Pole IP Holding (NZ) Ltd v Thing (Interlocutory Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 21 January 2026 [PDF, 182 KB]

    [2026] NZEmpC 5 South Pole IP Holding (NZ) Ltd v Thing (Interlocutory  Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 21 January 2026) APPLICATION FOR STAY - insufficient basis for prejudice suffered if stay is not granted - significant delay in applying for stay weighs against granting application - application declined - APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS - jurisdiction of Court to order security for costs without granting a stay is unclear - purpose of order can be met by applying for enforcement of remedies in the District Court - application declined

  8. KR v Q Ltd [2026] NZDT 5 (16 January 2026) [PDF, 116 KB]

    Contract / Trespass / Applicant parked her vehicle in a car park / Respondent issued an infringement notice of $95, asserting the space was a private car park it monitored / Applicant disputed liability arguing there was no contract / Applicant claimed she did not knowingly park in a private space and that she should not be liable for additional administration, recovery, and debt collection fees / Respondent counterclaimed $482.96, comprising infringement notice and additional fees / Held: no contract between the parties as signage did not constitute an offer capable of acceptance / Applicant had parked in a private car park monitored by Respondent and therefore trespassed / Infringement notice was reasonable and recoverable as reflecting occupier’s legitimate interests / Additional administration, recovery, and debt collection fees were not recoverable as no contractual basis for them / Respondent failed to prove actual damages / Applicant ordered to pay $95.00 / Respondent’s claim fo…

  9. [2025] NZEmpC 281 A Labour Inspector of MBIE v Elements Therapeutic Massage Limited and ors [PDF, 183 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 281 A Labour Inspector of MBIE v Elements Therapeutic Massage Limited and ors (Interlocutory Judgment (No 2) of Judge M S King, 22 December 2025).  APPLICATION FOR STAY – substantive challenge appealed to the Court of Appeal and stayed by consent – parties do not consent to a stay on the issue of costs – leave to appeal being pursued in good faith – appeal raises issues of public interest – right of appeal will not be rendered nugatory by a stay – issue of costs may create degree of complexity – undesirable to treat substantive proceeding differently to costs determination – interests of justice and efficiency that costs be determined following appeal – costs stayed pending outcome of appeal process or further order of the Court – application granted.

  10. [2025] NZEmpC 283 healthAlliance NZ Limited v Cunningham [PDF, 202 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 283  healthAlliance NZ Limited v Cunningham (Judgment of Judge M S King, 22 December 2025) APPLICATION FOR COMPLIANCE ORDER – failure to promptly comply with verification orders made by the court – verification order complied with following delay – unnecessary to grant compliance order – application declined – delay to result in costs – APPLICATION FOR SANCTIONS – NON-COMPLIANCE – STAY OF EXECUTION – application to impose sanction following failure to comply with compliance orders – evidence of financial hardship unsubstantiated – interests of justice require a stay over proceedings pending costs paid.

  11. KN v LT & X Ltd [2025] NZDT 471 (22 December 2025) [PDF, 219 KB]

    Contract / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Applicants are trustees of trust that owns commercial premises which suffered water leak / Respondent is a statutory body that delivers water and wastewater / Respondent refused water rebate following leak because building was a commercial property / Applicant sought declaration of non-liability for water consumption costs for month of the leak  / Held: Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear claim as it constitutes a claim in respect of money due under an enactment / Claim struck out for lack of jurisdiction.

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