ClickCease

Although the written agreement called Mr Takaloo an independent contractor, the ERA found that the real nature of his relationship with Kaur Queens Trading Limited was employment. Withholding his final wages, verbal abuse, aggressive conduct and cancelling his access amounted to unjustified constructive dismissal. The company was ordered to pay $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 articles and guides.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
Juliet Hull v Sleaktek Limited and Robert Lawrence [2026] NZERA 579 - CEO wins dismissal and disadvantage claims

Sleaktek stopped paying chief executive Juliet Hull, pursued a predetermined redundancy and later alleged serious misconduct without a fair process. The ERA upheld dismissal and disadvantage grievances and ordered more than $180,000 before interest, with findings against the director personally.

Eun Joo Kim v Sage & Umber Limited and Pei Su [2026] NZERA 555 - public attack caused constructive dismissal

Café owner Pei Su loudly questioned chef Eun Joo Kim's competence and trustworthiness in front of other staff and told her that if she could not do the job she could go. The ERA found this repudiatory conduct caused an unjustified constructive dismissal. Sage & Umber Limited was ordered to pay $8,704.40 gross lost wages, $18,000 compensation, wage and holiday-pay arrears, interest and a penalty.

Valerie Leech v Electrical Importing Co Limited [2026] NZERA 553 - employment was agreed before the 90-day trial was signed

Electrical Importing Co Limited agreed the job's core terms with Valerie Leech and directed her when to start before presenting a written agreement containing a 90-day trial. The ERA found she was already an employee when the trial provision was signed, so the trial was invalid and her dismissal was unjustified. She was awarded $21,250 gross lost remuneration and $13,000 compensation.

LUO v BAZ [2026] NZERA 549 - genuine redundancy undone by inadequate consultation and redeployment

BAZ had genuine financial reasons to restructure, but it gave LUO no proper proposal, financial information, timeframe or clear warning that her job was at risk. It then required her to apply for a new role that was substantially the same as her existing position. The ERA found the redundancy dismissal unjustified and awarded $11,000 compensation.

Jonathan Rhodes v Barfoot & Thompson Limited [2026] NZERA 543 - medical incapacity dismissal before a genuine opportunity to recover

Barfoot & Thompson Limited dismissed Senior Property Manager Jonathan Rhodes for medical incapacity while he was recovering from concussion and further head injuries. The ERA found he had not received a genuine opportunity to recover, the inquiry into his prognosis was incomplete, an imminent neurological assessment was not awaited, and the proposed alternative role did not reflect the clinical advice for a graduated return on reduced hours. The dismissal was unjustified and Barfoot & Thompson was ordered to pay $30,000 compensation.

Browse topics