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.

2970 items matching your search terms

  2. BI v YR Inc [2013] NZDT 439 (25 October 2013) [PDF, 13 KB]

    Jurisdiction / Applicant claimed penalties and legal costs arising from non-payment of body corporate levies / Held: Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear matters relating to body corporate levies as they are “money due under an enactment” (Unit Titles Act) / s 11(7) Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 / fact that new claim is for penalties and legal costs do not bring it into jurisdiction because the original cause of action is still the same / claim struck out.
  3. [2013] NZEmpC 195 Harrisons Fine Art Ltd v Carrothers [PDF, 65 KB]

    Harrisons Fine Art Ltd v Carrothers [2013] NZEmpC 195 [Interlocutory Judgment of Chief Judge G L Colgan, 21 October 2013] APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS – Defendant seeks $7000 security from plaintiff – Interests of justice require that plaintiff give security for costs – Justified by combination of unusual factors – Plaintiff company is insolvent – Unlikely to meet even a modest award of costs if unsuccessful – Defendant is legally aided – Consideration required as to whether Crown funds should be expended on fruitless exercise of recovering costs from plaintiff if unsuccessful – Refusal of plaintiff to take part in Authority investigation – Indicates an indifference to the proceedings and its consequences – Application granted
  10. [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.
  12. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. [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.
  21. [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.
  23. [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.
  24. [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.
  25. 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.

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