It called a $50,000 settlement offer excessive, then got hit with an even bigger costs bill
Chief Judge Christina Inglis ordered a midwives' union on 31 July 2026 to pay over $75,000 after it rejected a $50,000 settlement offer.
The dispute began when a member of the union raised concerns about how it had handled workplace issues. She filed grievances against both the union and her employer, then challenged a determination of the Employment Relations Authority. The Employment Court found the union had deliberately and seriously breached its duty of good faith toward her, awarding $38,000 in compensatory damages and a $12,000 penalty.
In June 2024, the member offered to withdraw both her Employment Court claim and a parallel District Court defamation proceeding for $50,000. She also sought an apology, acknowledgements that the union had acted unfairly, undertakings against future disparaging comment, and a facilitated meeting. The union rejected the offer nine days later, describing the sum as "well in excess of a reasonable settlement offer" and saying it wished to put matters behind it.
When costs came to be decided, the member sought a 33.33 per cent uplift on her scale costs. The union opposed any uplift, arguing the June 2024 offer was not a valid settlement offer because it included non-financial demands the Court could not itself order, such as apologies, acknowledgements of wrongdoing and non-confidential terms.
Chief Judge Inglis was not persuaded. She noted the union had not disputed that the offer was transparent, readily understandable and open for sufficient time, nor quibbled with the $50,000 figure, which was precisely the amount the union conceded was appropriate 15 months later. Because the member remained in an ongoing employment relationship with the union, the Chief Judge reasoned, the duty of good faith continued, and apologies and written undertakings "would almost certainly flow on naturally, if not by necessity" as a result.
The union argued it was a smaller organisation and that a significant costs order would impact its members. The Chief Judge pointed to publicly available financial statements showing a healthy cash on hand balance and was not persuaded the order would cause undue financial hardship.
When the union sought a reduction on the basis the case raised novel legal questions amounting to a test case, the Chief Judge acknowledged the preliminary jurisdictional issue was difficult and untested. She noted, however, that the union could have accepted the settlement offer before that issue was even filed, observing "it was ultimately the defendant's decision to require litigation to resolve it."
Settling on a 20 per cent uplift rather than the 33.33 per cent sought, the Chief Judge ordered the union to pay $69,235.12 for the Employment Court proceeding and a further $6,321.56 toward the earlier Authority investigation, a total of $75,556.68, due within 28 days.
