Employer ERA Costs
Employers are often shocked that even when they win in the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), recovering actual legal spend from an employee is usually limited. The starting point is the ERA daily tariff and costs are a contribution, not an indemnity.
What employers can really recover in ERA costs
A common employer shock is that even when you "win" in the ERA, recovering your actual legal spend from the employee is usually limited. Costs in the ERA are typically a contribution, not an indemnity. The starting point is the daily tariff approach and then the Authority makes adjustments up or down.
Quick takeaways
- Budget honestly: treat the bulk of legal spend as a business cost, and any costs award as a partial contribution only.
- Be careful with threats: inflated costs threats are sometimes used as settlement pressure that does not match the tariff-based reality.
- Conduct matters: delays, timetable breaches, and unnecessary steps can cause uplift (or reduction) in costs.
- Offers matter: a reasonable Calderbank offer, rejected and not beaten, can influence costs outcomes.
| Case | Employer costs claimed | Costs awarded | Takeaway |
|---|---|---|---|
| DEVI v Eclipse Recruitment Limited [2021] NZERA 42 | $35,396.14 (invoice) | $6,500 | Tariff baseline, limited uplift, and large parts of the claim not accepted. |
| KIM v Mega Painting Limited [2021] NZERA 125 | $9,131 plus disbursements | $2,590 | Only part-day tariff allowed; mediation and other items not awarded. |
The employer's fee (a real example)
As an example we refer to DEVI v ECLIPSE RECRUITMENT LIMITED [2021] NZERA 42, where the final invoice to the employer was $35,396.14. The employer through its representative claimed full reimbursement of this amount, but only $6,500 was awarded against the unsuccessful party. I am only going to briefly discuss what is in the Authority costs determination on this point:
- It was not accepted that costs for mediation be awarded.
- It was not accepted that "costs on costs" be awarded. This included costs for the representatives reading the ERA substantive determination and undertaking legal research on the issue of costs.
- The uplift on top of the daily tariff was an extra $2,000 on the basis of rejection of a Calderbank offer and the investigation meeting going over time for the first day.
The representatives for the employer had charged hourly rates of $425.00, $350.00 and $275.00 respectively where none of these representatives were lawyers.
It was expected that $35,396.14 would be awarded in full.
That claim included mediation (which is not part of an Authority investigation meeting), and costs on costs, such as reading the decision and researching the law on costs.
The Authority, applying the law on costs, declared that only $25,000 of the over $35,000 claimed was actually attributable to ERA-related expenses.
The outcome was decided based on PBO Limited (formerly Rush Security Limited) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 8080 which is described in the ERA practice note on costs.
$6,500 was ordered, not $35,396.14.
An Authority determination will not tell whether a costs award is actually paid.
Here we go again
Another example we refer to KIM v MEGA PAINTING LIMITED [2021] NZERA 125, where the employer was claiming costs of $9,131 plus disbursements of $175.06. The company through its representative claimed full reimbursement of costs. Following my written submissions for the claimant employee to hand up to the Authority Member, the claimant employee was ordered to pay a total of $2,590. No surprise to us here:
- It was not accepted that costs for mediation be awarded.
- It was not accepted that the employee pay an ERA filing fee that the employer never paid.
- On a principled approach, and on the basis of this involving a part day to hear a preliminary issue, only part of a day of the first day according to the daily tariff was awarded.
$2,590 was ordered, not the over $9,000 that was sought by the company. An Authority determination will not tell whether a costs award is actually paid.
Employer-side strategy on costs
- Run a tariff-based budget: ask your representative to explain what day count is realistically in play.
- Do not waste steps: unnecessary applications and delays can increase costs exposure.
- Use settlement properly: a reasonable offer can reduce risk and improve your position on costs.
- Make decisions with facts: decisions should be made on evidence and law, not threats.
Related articles
Browse all articlesCosts in the Employment Relations Authority
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) issued an updated practice note on costs. The daily tariff remains $4,500 for the first day and $3,500 for subsequent days, with adjustments up or down based on the circumstances.
Unreasonable Employment Lawyer Costs
Employers beware of high employment lawyer fees when defending a personal grievance claim. Even if you win, recovering your actual legal spend in the ERA is usually limited by the daily tariff approach.
Employee ERA Costs Uplift
When an employee is successful in the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), the employee can seek a contribution to costs. Costs can be uplifted above the daily tariff where employer conduct increases time and expense.
Menzies v Corrigan Advocate and Lawyer conduct
Mr Menzies lost company limited liability protection over grievance remedies in the ERA. We appealed to the Employment Court, but discontinued when it became futile. Catherine Stewart Barrister team repeatedly made veiled threats to seek a jail sentence against Mr Menzies in event of non-payment. Fresh evidence has led to a judicial review now underway.
Joyce v Ultimate Siteworks Limited - advocate and lawyer conduct
Joyce v Ultimate Siteworks Limited [2024] NZEmpC 204 - Advocate and Lawyer Conduct. Breaching our client's privacy, using a complaint as a bargaining chip, pressuring us to discontinue representation and a SLAPP.
150A Payment on resolution of problem and Advocates' GST Invoices are lawful
Parties can agree that an advocate is paid directly by the employer in terms of an s 149 record of settlement. "Payment" excludes legal or advocacy services where such service is a separate term of the settlement and a GST invoice for a defined sum is provided to the other party.
