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.

3025 items matching your search terms

  1. LCRO 80/2021 A LN and B LN v QG (9 November 2021) [PDF, 265 KB]

    Review / Committee declined to take further action / employment proceedings / complaint fees were excessive / lawyer provided final invoice late / lost data relating to client file / did not keep client properly informed about costs / allowed personal issues to dominate certain client communications / Privacy Act 2020, section 22, Information Privacy Principle 5 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 9.1 / rule 9.6 / HELD / LCRO could not determine whether lawyer managed document and email management systems efficiently / unreasonable delay in providing final invoice / personal issues did not excuse obligations to clients / Committee overlooked delay before COVID-19 lockdown / additional aggravating delay after Alert Level 2 restrictions began / fees fair and reasonable for work undertaken / Committee’s decision modified to find breach of rule 9.6 / Committee’s decision otherwise confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

  2. DH v KQ [2021] NZDT 1654 (9 November 2021) [PDF, 203 KB]

    Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased electric scooter from Respondent on TradeMe / Advertisement detailed scooter as included 60v motor / Once purchase was complete, Applicant found scooter held a 52v motor / Applicant claims $1650.00 for refund of purchase price and cost of installing 60v motor / Whether Respondent misrepresented scooter / Whether misrepresentation induced Respondent to purchase scooter / Held: Respondent advertised scooter under an innocent misstatement / Applicant induced to enter into contract by misrepresentation / Claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay $495.00.

  3. FI v CI [2021] NZDT 1651 (8 November 2021) [PDF, 204 KB]

    Negligence / Dog Control Act 1996 / Dogs belonging to the parties were involved in an altercation / Applicant claimed $9,030.00 for her dog’s surgeries following the altercation / Which dog was responsible for causing the altercation / What was the cause of damage to the Applicant’s dog / Was the damage to the Applicant’s dog a foreseeable result of the fight between the dogs / If so, did the Applicant have a duty to minimise her losses / Whether the Respondent was responsible for the costs of both surgeries / Whether the costs claimed reasonable / Held: more likely than not that the Respondent’s dog caused the altercation / Evidence suggested that the damage to the Applicant’s dog was caused the Respondent’s dog /  Evidence suggested that the damage to the Applicant’s dog was a foreseeable result of the fight between the dogs  / Applicant did everything she could do minimise her losses / Respondent was not responsible for the cost of both surgeries / There were too many variables impa…

  4. DQ & FD v BS [2021] NZDT 1655 (2 November 2021) [PDF, 209 KB]

    Residential tenancy / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Parties jointly renting property on fixed term lease, as a residential tenancy / Each paid $733.00 bond / Applicants indicated they wanted to move out in four weeks’ time / Applicants each had their own rooms / Tenants all tried to find replacements / Tenant was found for one room, other room untenanted until two weeks after Applicant had moved out / One Applicant was repaid full bond by remaining tenants / Second Applicant had two weeks rent deducted from bond / Applicants filed a claim for the amount of bond not refunded / Claim for a breach of the agreement between the tenants which was alleged to have resulted in a loss of two weeks rent, $430, to the Applicants / Respondents counterclaimed for a declaration that they were not liable under the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 / Was there a legally binding agreement between Applicants and Respondents as to the refund of bond / If so, what are the terms of the agreement / Whether the term…

  5. Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee 1 v Jacobsen [2021] NZLCDT 28 (1 November 2021) [PDF, 108 KB]

    Penalty / practitioner admitted two charges of misconduct and found guilty of another / conveyancing transaction involving transfer of property owned by practitioner mother to company owned by the practitioner and her husband / practitioner then borrowed additional money against the property / conflict of interest / failing to protect client’s interests / misleading conduct / appropriate penalty / HELD / practitioner did not present risk to other clients or public / no need for fine or censure / features of misconduct (inattention to practitioner’s mother and securing additional funds against the property) understandable although grievous / Tribunal ordered 10-week suspension / practitioner to pay Standards Committee’s and Tribunal’s costs

  6. Auckland Standards Committee 4 v O'Boyle [2021] NZLCDT 27 (29 October 2021) [PDF, 170 KB]

    Penalty / misconduct for sending letters containing false allegations and speculation to employers of people involved in family court case / HELD / Standards Committee’s penalty submissions focused on a punitive outcome / penalty can pursue more than one goal / Tribunal needs to disapprove of misconduct, but compensation and rehabilitation also relevant / practitioner needs to be challenged about her practice and to account for her choices / required to undertake professional supervision for a minimum of one year / ordered to compensate each victim $3,000 / Tribunal ordered six-week suspension / practitioner to pay Standards Committee’s and Tribunal’s costs

  7. NW v KU [2021] NZDT 1672 (26 October 2021) [PDF, 136 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Misrepresentation / Applicant purchased car online for $2,500.00 from the Respondent / Respondent advertised the car had 164,000 kms on the clock / NZ Transport Agency documents revealed the car had an odometer reading of 446,307 kms / Car stopped working / Applicant claimed Respondent misrepresented the car's condition / Applicant claimed damages including a refund and travel costs totalling in $2,640.52 / Respondent claimed those kms were correct at the time he sold it to Applicant and said he did not misrepresent the car / Held: Respondent misrepresented the car when he said it had around 164,000 kms on it / Where a party has been induced to enter into a contract as a result of a misrepresentation by the other party / They are entitled to damages from the other party in the same manner and to the same extent as if the representation were a term of the contract that has been breached / Applicant entitled to damages of $1,250.00 / Resp…

  8. LC v TL and UB Ltd t-a HE [2021] NZDT 1668 (22 October 2021) [PDF, 150 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Respondent provided immediate and conventional denture to Applicant / Applicant claims neither denture of acceptable quality or fit for purpose / Applicant claims reimbursement of $2,502.00 / Was immediate denture of acceptable quality? / Was conventional denture of acceptable quality? / If not, is Applicant entitled to reimbursement / Held: immediate denture was of acceptable quality per s 7 CGA / Held: conventional denture not of acceptable quality / Held: Applicant not entitled to refund for immediate denture; entitled to refund of $650.00 for conventional denture plus mileage costs / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $662.00 / Claim allowed in part.  

  9. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Nguy [2021] NZLCDT 26 (21 October 2021) [PDF, 117 KB]

    Penalty / practitioner admitted misconduct for misappropriation of $1 million / accepted they would be struck off / did not accept further charge of obstructing and frustrating the Standards Committee’s investigative processes / whether practitioner liable for obstruction / if so, whether misconduct or unsatisfactory conduct / HELD / obstruction charge made out / practitioner failed to provide files and documents despite repeated requests / behaviour cannot be ignored even though practitioner will inevitably be struck off / message needs to be sent to the legal community and the community at large that this behaviour is serious / obstruction was misconduct / conduct not excused by practitioner’s mental stress / Tribunal ordered practitioner be struck off and imposed censure for obstruction / practitioner to pay Standards Committee’s and Tribunal’s costs

  10. LCRO 172/2020 CA v PL (14 October 2021) [PDF, 174 KB]

    Complaint / Committee declined to take further action / property sale and purchase / complaint about lawyer’s lack of communication, “misinformation”, and fees / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 9 / HELD / no evidence lawyer did not understand rules for property transactions during COVID-19 lockdown / client was abusive and difficult to act for, lawyer kept communication to a minimum and was to be commended for continuing to act / lawyer’s fees “more than” reasonable / not unreasonable for lawyer to secure fees prior to carrying out work necessary to complete settlement / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

  11. BD & NL v CM Ltd t-a HD [2021] NZDT 1669 (14 October 2021) [PDF, 277 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicants purchased cooker from Respondent / Applicants’ had issues with cooker, no replacement parts available and have replaced cooker / Applicants’ claim damages of $9,097.87 from Respondent for costs of refund and replacement of cooker / Is cooker not of acceptable quality and/or not fit for purpose? / Is Respondent Manufacturer of Cooker; if so, did Respondent faile to take reasonable action to ensure facilities for repair of cooker and supply parts were available? / Did Respondent engage in conduct misleading or deceptive? / If so, are Applicants entitled to remedy and is remedy claimed proved and reasonable? / Held: cooker not of acceptable quality or reasonably fit for purpose / Evidence shows issue with cooker and no evidence that Applicants’ did not care appropriately for the cooker / Held: Respondent manufacturer of cooker under s 12 of CGA / Held: Respondent in capacity of manufacturer of cooker failed to comply with s 12 of CGA / Appli…

  12. BC v TG [2021] NZDT 1636 (13 October 2021) [PDF, 105 KB]

    Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant and Respondent were drivers in vehicle collision / Respondent intended to turn right into driveway as he did so Applicant began to overtake and vehicles collided / Applicant stated Respondent did not indicate / Applicant claimed $250.00 for his insurance excess for car repairs / Whether Respondent was responsible for collision / If so, whether costs were reasonable / Held: not proven that Respondent was responsible for collision / Parties have differing recollections of events / Not proven on balance of probabilities that Respondent failed to indicate / Not reasonable for Respondent to have kept constant watch on car behind him whilst making turn / Not proven that Respondent was responsible for collision / Claim dismissed.

  13. LC v DH Ltd & QH Ltd [2021] NZDT 1667 (11 October 2021) [PDF, 115 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent completed retro-fit double glazing of Applicant’s home / Applicant experienced various problems with installation which culminated in meeting between the parties / Agreed that Second Respondent would remediate problems with original work and complete additional work / Applicant claimed $11,356.08 from Respondent for refund of quote and payment for original work / Applicant also claimed $3,797.00 from Second Respondent for price of additional work and further claims from both Respondents of $567.77 / Were services provided by Respondent done with reasonable care and skill / If not, was Applicant entitled to refund from Respondent / Were services provided by Second Respondent reasonably fit for purpose / If not, did Applicant or agent contribute to solution installed / If not, was Applicant entitled to refund from Second Respondent / Was Applicant entitled to costs / If so, who should pay the costs / Held: Respondent did not provide services with…

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