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.

3339 items matching your search terms

  5. [2015] NZEmpC 158 Sealord Group Ltd v Pickering [PDF, 123 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 158 Sealord Group Ltd v Pickering - (Costs judgment of Judge A D Ford, 17 September 2015) COSTS – costs of submissions in Authority upheld - costs of witness professional fees in Authority were reasonable–notional daily tariff applied – first Calderbank offer not relevant as quantum of judgment plus costs exceeded value of Calderbank – second Calderbank offer irrelevant as not made within a reasonable time before hearing – interlocutory costs awarded in part - GST neutral position adopted – no award for witness professional fees in Court – interest for amount awarded by Authority – contribution for costs for submissions in Court – Held, $9,318.56 awarded for Authority costs - $41,000 for costs in Court
  6. [2015] NZEmpC 159 Smith Crane & Construction Ltd v Hall [PDF, 184 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 159 Smith Crane & Construction Ltd v Hall - (Costs judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 17 September 2015) COSTS – Da Cruz principles still apply – notional daily rate applied – no reason for uplift or decrease in usual starting rate of 66 per cent of costs actually and reasonably incurred for costs in the Authority – sch 2 and 3 of High Court Rules applied – awarded costs in the Court increased from starting rate of 66 per cent of costs actually and reasonably incurred to 75 per cent due to Calderbank offer - GST neutral position adopted – Held, $1,821.56 awarded to defendant for costs in Authority – $7,800 awarded to defendant for costs in Court.
  7. [2015] NZEmpC 160 Shanmuganathan v PowerNet Ltd [PDF, 139 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 160 Shanmuganathan v PowerNet Ltd - (Costs judgment of B A Corkill, 17 September 2015) COSTS – Authority cost determination set aside as outcome of Court’s substantive determination differed to Authority’s – Calderbank irrelevant as offered monetary award as opposed to reinstatement– normal daily tariff rate applied – modest decrease from starting rate of 66 per cent to 50 per cent of costs actually and reasonably incurred due to contributory conduct – no reduction in costs for mediation - GST neutral approach adopted – Held, in applicant’s favour - reimbursed $5,000 for setting aside of Authority determination – Authority costs of $3,500 – Court costs of $8670.95 – disbursements of $1,206.24
  8. [2015] NZEmpC 156 Hoff v The Wood Lifecare Ltd costs [PDF, 85 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 156 Hoff v The Wood Lifecare Ltd (Costs Judgment of Judge A D Ford, 14 September 2015) COSTS – Calderbank offer irrelevant as did not exceed judgment sum – no adjustment to costs on account of conduct – no award of GST – reasonable costs awarded for non-publication order – no reason for change to usual starting rate of 66 per cent of costs actually and reasonably incurred – some disbursements allowed – costs on submissions granted – Held, plaintiff awarded $48,560 for challenge costs, disbursements and costs on submissions
  14. DE v WV Ltd [2015] NZDT 840 (4 September 2015) [PDF, 132 KB]

    Contract / independent contractor / Applicant engaged as contract builder by Respondent through written contract / Respondent allocated 96 hours for job, which extended to 116 following issues arising in work / Respondent has paid Applicant for 122 hours / Applicant claims $2,978.50 for additional 74 unpaid hours / Held: Applicant was working on estimate rather than fixed price basis under the contract / Applicant required to invoice time that reflected assigned hours / standard industry practice allows 15% margin on estimates above allocated hours towards actual time on job / Applicant entitled to charge and be paid for 110.4 hours for original scope of work / unpredictable issues arose during job that required more time / Respondent did not allocate additional hours for this increase by mutual agreement with Applicant, as was required under contract / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant additional hours for estimate and issues that arose, totalling $1,465.10
  15. [2015] NZEmpC 150 Burrowes v Commissioner of Police [PDF, 224 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 150 Burrowes v Commissioner of Police - (Costs Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 1 September 2015) COSTS – Application for costs in the Employment Relations Authority and costs in Employment Court – whether costs were reasonably incurred – Sixty-six per cent starting point – whether factors justify increase or decrease – consideration as to how costs to be approached where both parties have measure of success – assessment as to reliance to be placed on High Court Rules in relation to costs – consideration as to disbursements – consideration as to Calderbank offer – Held, percentage of costs in both the Authority and the Court awarded to plaintiff.
  17. [2015] NZEmpC 147 Rodkiss v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd [PDF, 268 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 147 Rodkiss v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd - (Costs Judgment of Judge A D Ford, 27 August 2015). COSTS – Calderbank offer made in the Employment Relations Authority relevant to issue of costs – GST neutral approach in relation to costs applied – consideration as to what qualifies as a recoverable disbursement – consideration as to factors justifying an increase or decrease from starting point of 66 percent contribution towards fair and reasonable costs - Held, percentage of costs and disbursements awarded to applicant.
  25. [2015] NZEmpC 135 Fagotti v Acme & Co Ltd [PDF, 402 KB]

    [2015] NZEmpC 135 Fagotti v Acme & Co Ltd (Judgment of the Full Court, 5 August 2015) COSTS AT THE AUTHORITY – CALDERBANK OFFERS – INDEMNITY COSTS – GST – whether the Authority should be influenced by the circumstances and justice of a particular case in awarding costs – different principles apply in the Authority and the Court – daily tariff at Authority has value – GST issue left for future case – not a case for indemnity costs – challenge dismissed.

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