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