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

  6. [2014] NZEmpC 227 O’Hagan v Waitomo Adventures Ltd [PDF, 129 KB]

    O’Hagan v Waitomo Adventures Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 227 (Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 12 December 2014) STRIKE-OUT – SECURITY FOR COSTS – Application by plaintiff for setting aside of judgment on grounds of fraud – Defendant applies to strike-out proceedings – Questionable as to whether implied power to set aside displaced by Court’s statutory power of rehearing – Plaintiff’s application discloses no reasonably arguable cause of action – Proceedings struck-out – Were proceedings not struck-out Court would have made order for security for costs.
  8. BZ Ltd v YA [2014] NZDT 719 (12 December 2014) [PDF, 58 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent engaged Applicant to carry out painting at a rental property / there was conversation about work to be done but nothing recorded in writing / parties have quite different accounts about what the extent of work was for the agreed price / Held: price charged by Applicant is reasonable for the amount of work done / even if Respondent thought other areas were included the price provided by Applicant was only for work they say it was and work that was actually done / Respondent liable to pay invoiced amount / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,945.
  9. [2014] NZEmpC 226 Lund South Ltd v Low [PDF, 99 KB]

    Lund South Ltd v Low [2014] NZEmpC 226 [Costs Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 11 December 2014] COSTS – Defendant claims costs incurred of $39,740  – Dispute as to reasonableness of costs incurred – Case should have been presented by only one counsel – Appropriate for defendant to have been represented by partner – Assessment of $21,351 reasonable costs by plaintiff too punitive – Reasonable costs $30,000 in the circumstances – Defendant awarded $20,000 on two-thirds basis
  14. ES v UH Ltd [2017] NZDT 641 (31 October 2014) [PDF, 82 KB]

    Cancellation of contract / Applicant entered into contract with Respondent to provide wedding decorations for her wedding / Applicant paid deposit and balance of contract price / Applicant cancelled contract four days before wedding / Applicant claimed refund of total money paid less the deposit / Held: Applicant not entitled to cancel contract / no termination clause in contract / no breach of contract by Respondent / Applicant not induced to enter contract by a misrepresentation / Respondent had already begun planning and preparatory work but travel and labour costs not yet incurred / Respondent entitled to damages less the costs not incurred
  15. DM v VN Trustees Ltd [2014] 723 ( 31 October 2014) [PDF, 146 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / reasonable care and skill / Applicant is an architect and was engaged by Respondents to complete two jobs on a piece of land, including drawing plans and applying for resource and building consents / second job had no written contract / Applicant claims for two unpaid invoices, totalling $6,182.40 / Respondent counter-claims that Applicant’s services not performed with reasonable care and skill, resulting in additional building costs and time delays / Respondents claim $50,000 which was reduced to $15,000 to fall within Tribunal jurisdiction / Held: the two sets of building consent plans were two separate contracts / first job was completed and paid for before second job was requested and at no time was a complaint made about first job / second job took same form as first despite having no written contract / amount charged by Applicant is reasonable for the nature of the work undertaken / insufficient evidence to prove that Applicant’s plans an…
  20. AV v ZE [2014] NZDT 668 (8 October 2014) [PDF, 23 KB]

    Contract / Applicant enrolled in an immersive 34 week Maori language course but missed 23 consecutive days / Respondent terminated Applicant’s study / Applicant claimed $3,300 being the portion of her fees and the course she missed / Held: s 235 of Education Act 1989 does not apply as Applicant did not terminate the course, her contract was cancelled by Respondent / section misconstrued by Respondent / Respondent made it clear that attendance was important but do not accept that by signing the enrolment form Applicant agreed the course could be cancelled and her fees forfeited / do not accept attendance was a term of the contract / reasonable consequence of Applicant failing to attend all classes is she not graduate / Respondent wrongly cancelled contract / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,300.

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