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...
Imagine receiving a WhatsApp message saying the government is now monitoring your calls, reading your private messages, and can even take legal action based on what you send. Sounds alarming, righ...