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

  1. BT v U Ltd [2025] NZDT 15 (10 March 2025) [PDF, 215 KB]

    Contract / Building Act 2004 (BA) / Applicant purchased newbuild from Respondent / Dispute over remedial work arose / Fault with kitchen tap caused water damage to flooring / Respondent delayed in repairing leaking shower hose / Applicant had items stolen allegedly due to improper security design and lighting / Applicant claims $23,992 for kitchen repairs, anxiety and stress, keys, replacement shower house, value of stolen items, plus work order to further secure property / Respondent counterclaimed $3815.56 / Held: Respondent breached contract by failing to remedy leaking kitchen tap in reasonable time and failing to provide Applicant with keys and Applicant breached contract by failing to pay balance of purchase price on settlement date / 16 day delay in arranging plumber for kitchen issues was unreasonable and Respondent liable for damaged flooring as consequential loss of leaking tap / Respondent not liable for shower hose as Respondent attempted to remedy issue / Compensation for …
  3. LC & SC v TB [2025] NZDT 83 (5 March 2025) [PDF, 187 KB]

    Contract / Private sale / Misrepresentation / Applicant bought vehicle from Respondent on a private sale for $4,300 / Vehicle had a gearbox sensor problem as it would not start / Applicant claimed refund of purchase price plus $500 for mechanic assessment costs / Held: consumer protection provided by Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003, Fair Trading Act 1986 and Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 do not apply to private sale / No proven misrepresentations / No legal basis to hold Respondent liable for any repair costs / Claim dismissed.
  4. OQ v NO [2025] NZDT 74 (5 March 2025) [PDF, 223 KB]

    Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 (“FTA’) / Applicant entered into sales and purchase agreement / Both parties agree that vendor’s guarantee was added to contract / Parties disagree on the guarantee means / Applicant claims right to costs if roof not in good working order / Respondent claims  Applicant bought ‘as is where is’ property’ /  Respondent claims Applicant was aware of existing roof defects and that it cost $19,000 to repair / Applicant claims $27,000 for roof repairs / Held: Breach in vendor guarantee / Vendor would be liable to pay damages in claim, however, Applicant has not named vendor in this claim / Applicant entitled to damages personally from Respondent / Respondent to pay Applicant original contract price of $20,000.
  5. [2025] NZIACDT 21 – KA v Wen (5 March 2025) [PDF, 197 KB]

    Professional practice / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s442 / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1, cl2e, cl14, cl17a, cl17b, cl17c, cl18a, cl18b, cl26aiii, cl26b, cl26d / HELD / adviser permitted unlicensed agent to perform work required to be undertaken by licensed adviser (‘rubber stamping’) / breaches of cl1, cl2e / failed to provide evidence of being licensed / breach of cl14 / failed to provide professional standards and complaints procedure / breaches of cl17a, cl17b, cl17c / failed to provide copy of visa application prior to lodgement / breach of cl1 / failed to provide service agreement, major departure from expected standard: Tian v TA [2024] NZDC 2759 / breach of cl18a / failure to maintain and provide complete file / breach of cl26aiii / filing system not well-managed / breach of cl26d / failed to advise of lodgement of application / breach of cl26b / no evidence of dishonesty / alternative charges of negligence dismissed / complaint partially upheld / sanctions to follow
  6. XD v U Ltd [2025] NZDT 46 (5 March 2025) [PDF, 203 KB]

    Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant made an online purchase with Respondent / Applicant did not receive the goods within the expected timeframe / Applicant asked for a refund if they could not supply an appropriate product / Respondent failed to provide refund / Applicant claims $326.94, being the price paid / Held: the goods were not supplied in the agreed timeframe / Applicant is therefore entitled to reject the goods because a failure to deliver goods is clearly a failure of substantial character / Respondent is obliged to pay Applicant $326.94 / Claim granted.
  7. CX v EN [2025] NZDT 48 (4 March 2025) [PDF, 173 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant bought a vehicle from the Respondent / Vehicle advertisement included statements that road user charges were in credit and injectors had been replaced / Applicant was advised of outstanding charges on vehicle when he went to purchase additional road user charges / Respondent unable to provide proof that road user charges were up to date / Respondent provided evidence for a different vehicle instead / Respondent only provided invoices for an online purchase of an injector seal kit / Respondent later denied that he ever said he had replaced injectors / Applicant claimed vehicle was misrepresented / Applicant sought compensation of $3,502.94, cost of replacement injectors and outstanding road user charges / Held: Respondent misrepresented the vehicle in relation to injectors and road user charges / Applicant stated he would not have purchased vehicle if he had known about condition of the injectors / Misrepresentations induced th…
  8. [2025] NZEmpC 34  Xu v Pioneer Education and Immigration Services Group Ltd [PDF, 313 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 34  Xu v Pioneer Education and Immigration Services Group Ltd (Judgment of Judge Beck, 4 March 2025) CHALLENGE – NON DE NOVO – REMEDIES – MITIGATION – UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Authority found plaintiff was unjustifiably dismissed – plaintiff challenges remedies awarded in Authority – plaintiff made reasonable attempts to mitigate loss – plaintiff was not offered alternative employment by company – plaintiff entitled to six months’ lost remuneration – no entitlement to full compensation – plaintiff entitled to job search and medical costs – plaintiff suffered moderately serious and reasonably long lasting harm – plaintiff awarded $35,000 compensation – no interest awarded on awards – challenge largely successful
  10. BN & EN v Z Ltd [2025] NZDT 76 (4 March 2025) [PDF, 206 KB]

    Insurance / House insurance / Applicants discovered upstairs shower leak was causing water damage / Applicants claimed under policy for full repair costs and additional compensation / Held: damage claimed for did not occur suddenly within insurance policy meaning / Referee found policy covered sudden and accidental damage only and Applicants bore onus to prove damage occurred suddenly / Evidence showed leak caused by deterioration of hemp seal and damage developed over time not abruptly or instantaneously / Referee referred to High Court definition of sudden as abrupt, all at once, instantaneous / Applicants failed to prove policy cover so no need to consider whether insurers had failed to act in good faith / Claim dismissed.
  11. UA v BT [2025] NZDT 132 (1 March 2025) [PDF, 204 KB]

    Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased refurbished laptop from Respondent for $1,769 / Laptop stopped working and was diagnosed with liquid damage on logic board / Applicant declined repair costs / Applicant claimed full refund of purchase price and diagnostic fee / Held: laptop was not of an acceptable quality and fit for purpose / Water damage was pre-existing / Failure of substantial character because refurbished laptop stopped working after 50 days / Applicant elected to get second assessment incurring a diagnostic fee which should be at his own cost / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,769 / Applicant ordered to return laptop to Respondent / Claim allowed.
  12. SC v U Ltd [2025] NZDT 38 (28 February 2025) [PDF, 144 KB]

    Tort law / Respondent installed pipes using a vibration type rig on building site 90m from Applicant’s property / Applicant’s house had cosmetic cracking on walls and ceiling / Applicant alleged damage caused by Respondent’s pile driving / Applicant claimed $14188.40 for repairs, engineering report, accommodation during repairs and furniture removal costs / Held: damage was not caused by Respondent’s activity / Cracks were cosmetic and consistent with the natural movement of timber framed houses / Applicant’s house had previously withstood major earthquakes without damage / Pile driving forces significantly lower than seismic forces / No other neighbours reported damage / Claim dismissed.
  13. MN v DX [2025] NZDT 97 (28 February 2025) [PDF, 154 KB]

    Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a horse from Respondent, intending to train the horse for eventing / After purchase, Applicant observed issues such as an inconsistent canter and pain from a sacro-iliac injury / Applicant claimed Respondent misrepresented the horse’s ability and condition / Applicant sought to return the horse for a full refund and reimbursement of related costs totalling $13,048.21 / Held: Respondent was not in trade / Implied warranties did not apply / Respondent did not misrepresent the horse’s condition or behaviour to Applicant / Respondent disclosed relevant canter issues prior to sale / No evidence of sacro-iliac injury prior to sale / Claim dismissed.
  14. ZM v BQ [2025] NZDT 85 (27 February 2025) [PDF, 195 KB]

    Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Accident Compensation Act 2001 (ACA) / Applicant engaged Respondent for dental services for a bridge replacement / Applicant had multiple bridge treatments from Respondent / Applicant experienced ongoing pain and later had tooth extracted and implant fitted / Applicant claimed $28,344 for refund of fees, further dental costs, general damages and expenses / Held: Applicant did not provided sufficient evidence that Respondent failed to exercise reasonable care and skill / Claim not barred by ACA as Applicant alleging Respondent failed to properly treat underlying condition not that Respondent caused treatment injury / CGA required reasonable care and skill, not guarantee of outcome / Respondent’s treatment decisions were clinically reasonable based on information available / Failure of overlay bridge explained by design limitations / Respondent replaced bridges at no cost and referred to specialist when appropriate / Insufficient eviden…
  15. Tane v Accident Compensation Corporation (Personal Injury) [2025] NZDC 36 (27 February 2025) [PDF, 228 KB]

    Appeal from the decision of a Reviewer. Ss 20, 25, 26 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether the Corporation correctly declined cover for the injuries and entitlements claimed by appellant, including weekly compensation and treatment costs. Held: Corporation correctly declined cover for lumbago with sciatica, right rupture of tendon, and L5/S1 facet joint osteoarthritis- medical evidence did not establish a causal link to the accident. Reversed Corporation’s decision to decline weekly compensation for right gluteal strain. Granted appeal in relation to Corporation’s decline of cover for sprain injury of the facet joint and directed further funding for treatment costs. Appeal partly granted.
  16. H Ltd v D Ltd [2025] NZDT 37 (27 February 2025) [PDF, 172 KB]

    Contract law / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant contracted with Respondent for two-year video advertising package / Respondent cancelled contract on two months later alleging misrepresentation of ad quality / Applicant claimed $3260.48 for services provided and 20% early termination fee per contract / Held: no misrepresentation established and contract valid / Respondent approved adverts despite misgivings / Draft adverts were consistent with Respondent’s stated expectations and other adverts by Applicant / Further advertisement production was underway and cancellation occurred before process completed / Respondent liable for fees to date of cancellation and 20% of remaining contract value / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3260.48 / Claim allowed.
  17. BI & FF v LH [2025] NZDT 65 (27 February 2025) [PDF, 207 KB]

    Negligence / Collision between a vehicle driven by the Applicant and one driven by the Respondent on the motorway / Collision occurred when Respondent pulled over to turn right across the motorway resulting in the Applicant colliding with his vehicle / Applicant filed a claim with their insurance company / Applicant’s insurer claimed $14,930.25 from Respondent on the basis that the car was so badly damaged it could not be repaired / Held: Respondent failed to take reasonable care to ensure the road was clear before turning / Applicant had the right of way and the Respondent failed to give way to her / Costs claimed by the Applicant’s insurer were reasonable / Respondent ordered to pay $14,930.25 to the Applicant’s insurer / Claim allowed.
  18. HN v XE [2025] NZDT 66 (26 February 2025) [PDF, 182 KB]

    Contract / Applicant was elected a member of a community board / Emails were sent to the Applicant’s private email account as part of the role / Applicant emailed Respondent requesting a stop to the forwarded emails / Applicant then sent a further email indicating that if the forwarding of emails did not stop, he would invoice the Respondent $10.00 per week / Applicant stated that if the emails did not stop by a particular date, he would assume the Respondent accepted charges / Respondent responded that it would investigate the forwarding of emails, but that it did not agree to the charges / Applicant resigned from  community board / Applicant claimed $320 for invoice costs and late payment fee / Held: no contract in existence about payment of the invoiced amounts / No agreement was reached between the parties, and there was no acceptance of the Applicant’s offer /  Applicant suffered no loss from the Respondent’s actions nor did he incur any additional expenses / Claim dismissed.
  19. [2025] NZEmpC 29 Carrington Resort Jade LP v Graham [PDF, 159 KB]

    [2025] NZEmpC 29 Carrington Resort Jade LP v Graham (Interlocutory Judgment (No 2) of Judge M S King, 26 February 2025)  STRIKE-OUT – DISMISSAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION – plaintiff failed to comply with security for costs order – plaintiff no longer engaging with Court on proceedings – inordinate and inexcusable delay – delay has caused prejudice to defendant – proceedings have caused defendant stress – risk that costs of defence will render defendant’s success in Authority nugatory – challenge to be struck out if security for costs not paid within 14 days
  20. TL v DL [2025] NZDT 60 (26 February 2025) [PDF, 102 KB]

    Negligence / Applicant was driving on the motorway when Respondent changed lanes and collided with Applicant / Applicant’s insurer sought to recover $2,832.42 in repair costs / Respondent was uninsured at the time and disputed liability / Respondent claimed Aplicant was unlawfully driving in a bus lane / Held: Respondent failed to take reasonable care by changing lanes unsafely / Evidence showed the lane Applicant was driving in was not designated as a bus lane at the time of incident and Applicant’s actions were lawful / Repair costs were deemed reasonable and consistent with damage / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $2,832.42 / Claim allowed.
  21. LI v KC [2025] NZDT 115 (26 February 2025) [PDF, 193 KB]

    Tort / Negligence / Applicant and Respondent involved in vehicle accident / Front of Respondent's vehicle collided with the back of Applicant's vehicle, causing damage / Respondent denies liability / Applicant claimed $9,508.73 repair costs / Held: Respondent failed to take reasonable care when he did not stop before hitting rear of Applicant's vehicle / Respondent caused damage to Applicant's vehicle / Repair costs claimed are reasonable / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant's insurer $9,508.73 / Claim allowed.
  23. TN v KI & QI [2025] NZDT 62 (25 February 2025) [PDF, 141 KB]

    Contract / Tikanga / Applicant was engaged to act as a celebrant at the Respondents' wedding / Applicant advertised his services as “koha weddings”, meaning client could pay any donation rather than a fixed fee / Applicant also required a $50 non-refundable deposit to confirm bookings / Applicant claimed he only received the $50 deposit and no additional koha payment / Applicant claimed $550 for unpaid services and punitive fees / Held: contract existed, comprising a $50 deposit and an expected koha payment / Reasonable koha payment was $100, in addition to $50 deposit / Punitive fees were dismissed / Tribunal not permitted to award damages intended to punish / $11.83 interest awarded for payment delay / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $111.83 / Claim allowed in part.
  24. HN v OB & G Ltd & I Ltd [2025] NZDT 120 (25 February 2025) [PDF, 139 KB]

    Private nuisance / Applicant lived near a major construction project managed by the Respondents in a joint venture / Applicants claimed construction vibrations caused damage to his house and clothesline /  Applicants claimed $5,060.00 for house repairs and compensation for damaged clothesline / Held: both the construction vibrations and substandard repair work contributed to damage to Applicant’s house / Responsibility equally apportioned between joint venture and pre-existing repair issues / Respondents ordered to pay Applicants $2,530, 50% of the claimed repair costs  and to provide a replacement clothesline / Claim allowed in part.
  25. H Ltd v HF [2025] NZDT 168 (24 February 2025) [PDF, 225 KB]

    Contract / Respondent was building two luxury villas and engaged a design agency to create landscape design / Applicant was approached by the design agency as a landscape contractor / Respondent decided to take on project management and Applicant was no longer involved / Applicant claimed unpaid $22,613.03 invoice for work completed / Respondent counterclaimed non-liability for payment and payment of $11,496.00 as balance for overpaid amounts / Held: Applicant entitled to charge on a cost-plus basis and in doing so brought the total project price within a reasonable margin / Applicant charged a reasonable price for work done and unlikely to have contained any additional unsubstantiated amounts / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $22,613.03 / Counterclaim dismissed / Claim allowed.

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