ClickCease

Kaur Queens Trading labelled taxi driver Ashkan Vakilipour Takaloo an independent contractor, but controlled and integrated his work into its taxi business. The relationship broke down amid withheld wages, aggressive verbal abuse and cancellation of his ability to work out his notice.

The short answer

The ERA found Mr Takaloo was an employee despite the written contractor label and that the employer's conduct caused an unjustified constructive dismissal. It ordered $2,045 wages, $286.04 holiday pay, $12,038 lost remuneration and $7,500 compensation.


Askkan Vakilipour Takaloo v Kaur Queens Trading Limited [2026] NZERA 507

Name spelling: the determination's formal caption spells the applicant's first name “Askkan”, while the representatives section, body and operative orders use “Ashkan”. This article follows the formal caption in its title and refers to him as Mr Takaloo in the analysis.

A taxi company's written “independent contractor agreement” did not decide the real nature of the relationship. Ashkan Vakilipour Takaloo worked under the company's control, was integrated into its taxi business, and was not operating a genuine business of his own. The Employment Relations Authority found that he was an employee and that withholding his final wages, aggressive verbal abuse and preventing him from working out his notice amounted to unjustified constructive dismissal.

Key point: calling someone an independent contractor is not decisive. Control, integration and economic reality established employment, giving Mr Takaloo access to wage, holiday pay and personal-grievance remedies.

At a glance

  • Citation: [2026] NZERA 507
  • Authority member: Philip Cheyne
  • Determination date: 29 July 2026
  • Applicant: Askkan Vakilipour Takaloo (caption; “Ashkan” elsewhere in the determination)
  • Respondent: Kaur Queens Trading Limited, trading as Mr Singh Taxis
  • Work: taxi driver
  • Status: employee, despite contractor wording
  • Outcome: unjustified constructive dismissal
  • Total ordered: $21,869.04
  • Contribution: no reduction
  • Costs: reserved

The company did not defend the claim

Kaur Queens Trading Limited operated a taxi business under the name Mr Singh Taxis. Mr Takaloo worked as a driver from 20 January to 14 March 2025 under a document headed “independent contractor agreement”. The company questioned the Authority's jurisdiction during case management but then failed to file a reply, provide documents or appear at the investigation meeting.

The real nature of the relationship

The Authority applied the pre-February 2026 version of s 6 of the Employment Relations Act because the work and claimed rights arose in 2025. It assessed the real relationship rather than treating the agreement's label as conclusive.

Mr Takaloo worked under strict day-to-day control and was fully integrated into the taxi business. He did not issue invoices, was not GST registered, and did not manage his earnings as someone genuinely in business on his own account. He initially used a company-rented vehicle and later his own vehicle, but that single factor did not outweigh the broader evidence of employment.

The strongest point towards contracting was the heading and clause that described the relationship that way. Section 6 expressly prevented the Authority from treating that description as determinative. Mr Takaloo was found to have been an employee under a contract of service.

Unpaid final wages

Mr Takaloo was due $2,045 on Friday 14 March 2025. He attended the company's office, but the director did not pay him. The Authority accepted his evidence and awarded the unpaid wages. Based on total gross earnings of $3,575.56, it also awarded $286.04 holiday pay.

Constructive dismissal

Non-payment was not the only breach. The director verbally abused Mr Takaloo at the office and acted aggressively enough that Mr Takaloo felt physically threatened. The director had also previously been highly disrespectful and used inappropriate language towards him.

Taken together, the context, aggressive behaviour and refusal to pay wages amounted to a very serious employer breach. Mr Takaloo resigned because of that conduct, and resignation was a reasonably foreseeable response. Although he gave notice, the director deactivated the access card he needed for the business, preventing him from working out the notice period. The Authority found an unjustified constructive dismissal.

Remedies

The agreement and payment arrangements did not provide a reliable ordinary weekly earnings figure. The Authority used the “all other cases” minimum-wage rate of $1,852 per fortnight and assessed three months' ordinary remuneration at $12,038. Mr Takaloo's actual loss exceeded that sum despite his attempts to obtain other work.

The evidence showed that the grievance upset him, but there was limited specific evidence about the resulting harm. The case fell within the lower compensation band and $7,500 was awarded. There was no evidence of blameworthy employee conduct and no contribution reduction.

Orders made

  • Wage arrears: $2,045 gross.
  • Holiday pay: $286.04 gross.
  • Lost remuneration: $12,038 gross.
  • Compensation: $7,500 without deduction.
  • Total: $21,869.04.
  • Payment timeframe: 28 days.
  • Costs: reserved.

Why this case matters

Employment status determines access to important minimum standards and grievance remedies. A business cannot avoid those obligations merely by putting “independent contractor” at the top of an agreement. The case also shows that withholding wages combined with aggressive and abusive conduct can be a sufficiently serious breach to make resignation a constructive dismissal.

If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.

Read the full ERA determination (embedded)

If the embedded PDF does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.

Mobile / tablet tip: Some browsers do not display embedded PDFs reliably. Use the Open button above.


Source: Employment Relations Authority determination hosted on determinations.era.govt.nz.

0800 WIN KIWI

Search
Search cases, guides and topics.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
Shaun Graves v NZSL Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 669 - contractor became an employee before summary dismissal

Shaun Graves initially worked through his own contracting company, but later moved onto NZSL's PAYE payroll, worked regular hours under its direction and used its equipment. The ERA found he had become an employee from 23 September 2024 and was unjustifiably dismissed when simply told his services were no longer required.

Eric Paul Tillocksingh v Driver Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 663 - resign or be dismissed ultimatum was an unjustified dismissal

After a customer complaint, truck driver Eric Tillocksingh was called into meetings without advance written allegations or warning that dismissal was possible. The ERA preferred his evidence that he was told to resign or be dismissed, found the process fundamentally unfair, and awarded $15,000 compensation plus $17,448.75 lost remuneration.

Ross McCullum v RidgeAir Limited [2026] NZERA 658 - long-serving Chief Pilot was unjustifiably dismissed

After 15 years as RidgeAir's Chief Pilot, Ross McCullum had his work phone disconnected and laptop removed before a meeting at which he was told the business was closing. The ERA found the employer had dismissed him, rejected the later characterisation of his departure as voluntary, and awarded lost wages, compensation and substantial holiday-pay arrears.

Wenpeng Yu v Golden Rooster NZ Trading Ltd [2026] NZERA 699 - one week employee was dismissed, not an abandonment

Golden Rooster said chef Wenpeng Yu abandoned his job after only one week, but WeChat messages supported his evidence that the employer had dismissed him because it was unhappy with his productivity. The ERA found no fair process had been followed and awarded $7,500 compensation, $3,559.20 lost wages and annual holiday pay.

Xuefeng Yang v ERA Home Limited [2026] NZERA 695 - migrant worker was an employee despite employer denying relationship

ERA Home denied that Xuefeng Yang had ever become its employee, despite a signed employment agreement, an approved work visa and evidence that he worked at its construction site. The ERA found an employment relationship existed, upheld unjustified dismissal and disadvantage claims, awarded $23,000 compensation and $8,008.20 lost wages plus holiday pay, and imposed a $3,000 penalty on the company.

Herewini Dickson v Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited [2026] NZERA 693 - serious safety breach but dismissal and suspension unjustified

Ballance established that long-serving employee Herewini Dickson breached a safety SOP and that the conduct was capable of serious misconduct, but its process was still unfair. The ERA found both his suspension and dismissal unjustified because critical evidence was not disclosed, the HiPo classification was not fairly put to him and alternatives to dismissal were not adequately considered. Remedies were reduced 30 percent for contribution.

Browse topics