Introduction Approximately 5 to 10% of hernia repairs are conducted in an emergency setting. The study aims to show the differences in outcomes of emergency versus elective hernia repairs of all types in a single Metropolitan centre in Australia. Methodology We compared the emergency hernia cases with the elective hernia cases over the time period of two years in a single metropolitan centre. Data was further investigated and analysed on indications for hernia repair, type of mesh used, length of stay and representation due to post-operative complications. Results A total of 656 patients were investigated. The median age of the patients was 55,5 years. 32% (N=212/656) of the patients underwent emergency hernia repair and 67,7% (N=444/656) of patients were aimed for day-only hernia repair. 8,3% (N=49/591) of patients represented to our facility after discharge. The percentage of patients undergoing emergency hernia surgery was almost twice as high by 12,9% (N=19/147) versus 6,8% (N=30/444) after elective hernia repair. Overall, the most common reason for representation in both groups was pain (N=18/49), followed by wound discharge (n=4) in the emergency hernia group and swelling (n=7) in the elective hernia group. Approximately half of the patients with complications (53%, N=26/49) were readmitted to hospital. 0,5 % (N=2/444) of the elective hernia group and 2% (N=3/147) of the emergency hernia group patients underwent further surgery. The most common reason for re-surgery was haematoma evacuation (n=2). Conclusion Emergency hernia repair shows a higher complication risk compared to elective hernia repair. Overall, elective as well as emergency hernia repair have a low risk of requiring a redo procedure. However, the risk for re-surgery in emergency hernia repair (p=0.04) is significant, whereas in elective hernia repair (p=0.07) it is not significant.