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.

3065 items matching your search terms

  4. [2013] NZEmpC 182 Hally Labels Ltd v Powell [PDF, 15 KB]

    Hally Labels Ltd v Powell [2013] NZEmpC 182 [Interlocutory Judgment of Judge ME Perkins, 27 September 2013] APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM – Amendments sought in respect of damages claim for costs incurred in High Court and alleged breach of implied undertaking – Costs as damages claim not a new cause of action – Encompassed in broad claim for damages – Defendants opposition to grant of leave more akin to strike-out application – Defendant unlikely to suffer prejudice – Leave granted – APPLICATION FOR CONTINUATION OF FREEZING ORDER – Circumstances have not materially changed since order originally granted – Concerns over financial position of defendant not diminished – Order renewed and continued.
  6. AEJ Ltd v ZVM [2013] NZDT 304 (23 September 2013) [PDF, 56 KB]

    Negligence / Animal Law Reform Act 1989 / Respondent’s cattle which wandered on highway hit Applicant’s truck / cattle pushed through unsecured boundary gate / truck damaged in collision / issue is whether Respondent took reasonable care to ensure cattle did not stray / held that Respondent failed to take reasonable care as gate was not secured / argument that truck driver contributed to collision is rejected / Respondent ordered to pay $7,523.01 towards repair costs.
  13. AEH v ZVO [2013] NZDT 229 (17 September 2013) [PDF, 55 KB]

    Contract / oral contract / Respondent had not paid for six taxi rides over a two-year period / verbal contract existed / term that Respondent would pay for taxi and if he did not there would be fees and collection costs added / Respondent failed to pay outstanding fare and associated charges / breach of contract established / Applicant entitled to the recover cost of the fares, “reasonable” account fees and collection costs / Disputes Tribunal filing fee only recoverable in “exceptional circumstances” as set out in the Disputes Tribunal Act / claim for filing fee failed.
  14. [2013] NZEmpC 173 Webb v NZ Tramways & Public Passenger Transport Employees’ Union Incorp [PDF, 50 KB]

    Webb v New Zealand Tramways and Public Passenger Transport Employees’ Union Inc [2013] NZEmpC 173 [Costs Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 17 September 2013] COSTS – Proceedings brought by plaintiff struck out – Plaintiff opposes awarding of costs – Irregularities of defendant union brought to light by litigation – Forced to regularise positions relating to rules and elections – Plaintiff therefore obtained partial success – Discretion exercised not to award costs against plaintiff – Parties to bear own costs.
  15. [2013] NZEmpC 171 Fifita v Dunedin Casinos Ltd [PDF, 126 KB]

    Fifita v Dunedin Casinos Ltd [2013] NZEmpC 171 [Judgment of Judge AA Couch, 12 September 2013] COSTS – Challenge to Authority costs determination – Plaintiff unjustifiably dismissed – Awarded only $6957 due to contribution to dismissal – Defendant had made earlier Calderbank offer of $8000 – Authority held costs should not follow the event – Plaintiff ordered to pay defendant $5250 costs – Calderbank offer subject to condition of confidentiality – Principles applicable to Calderbank offers do not apply where conditional on confidentiality – Vindication often sought cannot be achieved – Significance of factor dependant on extent to which plaintiff actually achieved vindication through Authority investigation – Authority critical of plaintiff’s conduct – Net benefit in terms of reputation and vindication small – Weight therefore to be given to defendant’s Calderbank offer,  although not to same extent as Authority – No award of costs to be made in respect of Authority proceedings.
  17. [2013] NZEmpC 166 Catering Masters NZ Ltd v Anand [PDF, 63 KB]

    Catering Masters NZ Ltd v Anand [2013] NZEmpC 166 [Costs Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 5 September 2013]  Costs – Employment Relations Act – Clause 19, sch 3 – Defendant entitled to costs contribution of $5,500 in the Court and $1,500 in the Authority – Uplift in costs refused – Failure of plaintiff to attend judicial settlement conference not appropriate reason for uplift as process is voluntary – No inferences to be drawn against plaintiff’s motivation for challenge.
  18. [2013] NZEmpC 162 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [PDF, 139 KB]

    Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [2013] NZEmpC 162 [Interlocutory judgment of Judge A D Ford, 3 September 2003] Application for stay of proceedings –Employment Court Regulations – Reg 64 – Authority Member refused request for recusal – Plaintiff seeks challenge to determination in Court – Stay sought on substantive Authority investigation – Investigation set for late September 2013 – Member to retire October 2013 –Defendant likely prejudiced by stay as Member’s retirement would require appointment of new Member to hear case resulting in costs and inconvenience – Stay would effectively grant plaintiff desired outcome without merits of substantive challenge being assessed – Allegations of bias and pre-determination not of sufficient novelty or public interest to warrant stay – Application dismissed.
  19. AGR v ZTX Ltd [2013] NZDT 309 (2 September 2013) [PDF, 80 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to restore his car and agreed on a price of $20,000 / Applicant collected the repaired and repainted car to have it certified but failed on 9 issues / noted that repairs were very poorly done and not to a tradesman standard / $9,884.25 of further repairs were necessary to bring it up to certification standard / Applicant claimed that sum from Respondent / Held: Respondent was in breach of contract and the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / failed to perform the work to an acceptable standard and did not remedy them when notified / Applicant was entitled to have the failure remedied elsewhere / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $9,884.25.
  21. [2013] NZEmpC 158 Gapuzan v Pratt & Whitney Air New Zealand Services t/a Christchurch Engine Centre [PDF, 102 KB]

    Gapuzan v Pratt & Whitney Air New Zealand Services t/a Christchurch Engine Centre [2013] NZEmpC 158 [Interlocutory Judgment of Judge A A Couch, 29 August 2013] Successful application by the defendant for striking out of second amended statement of claim, and unsuccessful application for security for costs.  Parts of statement of claim seeking remedy under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 and s 17 of the Limitation Act 2010 are struck out for lack of jurisdiction.   No order for security for costs is made as the plaintiff has demonstrated his willingness to meet a significant order for payment from the Authority in the past and, despite his residence in Australia, the enforcement of judgments remains possible.  Costs reserved. 

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