Employment lawyer fees: avoiding unreasonable costs when defending a personal grievance
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.
The reality of costs in the ERA
A common employer shock is that even when you "win" in the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), recovering your actual legal spend from the employee is usually limited. The ERA starts from a daily tariff approach and then makes adjustments up or down.
Quick takeaways for employers
- Budget reality: treat legal fees as a business cost first, and any costs award as a partial contribution only.
- Ask for numbers early: get a clear estimate for each stage (responses, mediation, witness statements, investigation meeting).
- Do a costs-based risk analysis: settlement decisions should factor in likely remedies and likely costs exposure (not inflated threats).
- Conduct matters: timetable breaches, delays, and unnecessary steps can increase costs, even if you succeed on the merits.
Seeking indemnity costs
The seeking of indemnity costs is where a party seeks the full amount of costs that they have incurred. This is generally not available in New Zealand's courts unless the unsuccessful party has behaved either badly or very unreasonably during the course of the proceedings. This could include delaying tactics, timetabling breaches, or conduct that results in a party's preparation being unnecessarily duplicated. A clearly hopeless case could possibly meet the threshold for indemnity costs. Late withdrawal certainly is not a ground for indemnity costs.
The Employment Relations Authority's practice note on costs recognises that costs are dealt with in a way the Authority thinks reasonable. Contribution towards costs will be modest and not intended to punish. In doing so it uses a notional daily tariff as a starting point ($4,500 for the first day of an investigation meeting, and $3,500 for subsequent days). The daily tariff is adjusted upward or downward when taking into consideration party conduct that may have caused an increase in costs, or where reasonable offers to settle are rejected and not beaten.
These principles that apply to costs in the Authority should be well known to representatives. This knowledge should be shared with the client during the process and should be used effectively so that the employer defending a claim can make informed decisions regarding settlement.
If you are being threatened with big costs
- Compare it to the tariff: ask what day count they say applies and why.
- Ask for the basis: what conduct is alleged that justifies uplift (if any).
- Check the stage: a large invoice before an investigation meeting can be a red flag for overwork or inefficiency.
- Do not settle under misinformation: threats can be used to pressure settlement beyond what the law supports.
Trouble recovering ERA costs from an employee
JAMISON v PETS IN THE CITY MT WELLINGTON LIMITED [2022] NZERA 203
Through its advocates, Pets In The City sought against former employee Cassandra Jamison an award of indemnity costs, or alternatively a substantial uplift.
The total amount sought was $41,454.42.
The parties had not attended an investigation meeting; they were at the final stages of exchanging witness statements and documents.
The employer was only able to recover $2,000 from the employee, Ms Jamison.
![Jamison v Pets In The City Mt Wellington Limited [2022] NZERA 203](../../Images/Blog/jamison-v-pets-in-the-city.jpg)
Need employer-side help?
If you have received an ERA claim or you are trying to settle a matter without paying more than you should, we can help you evaluate risk, costs exposure, and strategy.
Employment law advice for employers
Related articles
Browse all articles![Menzies v Corrigan [2025] NZEmpC 186 - employment advocate and employment lawyer conduct](/Images/EmploymentAdvocatesAuckland.jpg)
Menzies v Corrigan [2025] NZEmpC 186 - employment advocate and employment 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.
Regulation of employment advocates: what the NZLS report found and why it matters
There is no case to regulate employment advocates. The report, Regulating Lawyers in Aotearoa New Zealand finds it to be a waste of time. The Employment Law Institute of New Zealand ELINZ go on about this but they are unable to articulate a specific case for regulation of employment advocates.
Joyce v Ultimate Siteworks Limited [2024] NZEmpC 204 - representatives, employment advocate and employment 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.
ERA settlements and s 150A "Payment on resolution of problem": paying advocates directly and GST Invoices
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.
Federated farmers employment agreement disputes: common issues for NZ farmers
The Federated Farmers Employment Contract is commonly used by farmer employers. We represent employers in employment disputes where problems arise with these contracts. The correct preparation and execution of the Federated Farmers Employment Agreement is important for the farmer employers that use them.
"No win, no fee" for employers: when it exists and what to do instead
There are a lot of employers who think that "No Win, No Fee" is an arrangement available to their business in defending a personal grievance or other claims.