ClickCease

Askkan Vakilipour Takaloo v Kaur Queens Trading Limited [2026] NZERA 507 - taxi driver was an employee and constructively dismissed

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
Mandeep Singh v PR Kahlon Limited and Satpal Singh [2026] NZERA 521 - performance dismissal failed because employee was not fairly heard

PR Kahlon Limited had genuine and well-documented concerns about delivery driver Mandeep Singh's performance, but knew English was a significant barrier and still communicated critical performance and disciplinary information in English rather than Punjabi. The ERA found he did not receive a clear and reasonable opportunity to respond, making his dismissal and suspension unjustified. After a 25 percent contribution reduction, PR Kahlon was ordered to pay $934.29 suspension wages, $10,121.48 lost remuneration, $13,500 compensation and the filing fee.

KCY v XSH [2026] NZERA 516 - bullying complaint failures, forced transfer and dismissal over promotional gifts

In an anonymised retail case, the ERA found that XSH unjustifiably disadvantaged KCY by failing to follow up her bullying complaint, placing her on paid special leave without proper consultation, and directing an immediate store transfer as a fait accompli. Her summary dismissal over expired promotional gifts and a back-office passcode was also unjustified because relevant evidence of common store practice and staff deception was not properly investigated. Compensation totalled $40,000 after contribution reductions, with further lost-remuneration and annual-leave orders.

Sione Afimeimounga v NPD Limited [2026] NZERA 506 - tanker driver constructively and unjustifiably dismissed

NPD failed for years to meaningfully address tanker driver Sione Afimeimounga's workload, scheduling and health and safety concerns. After he resigned on extended notice, NPD dismissed him for serious misconduct based on selected messages from a provocative exchange with another driver. The ERA found constructive dismissal, unjustified summary dismissal and unjustified suspension. NPD was ordered to pay $13,608 gross lost wages, $22,500 compensation after 10 percent contribution, and a $4,000 records penalty.

Paul Adams v EverEdge Global Limited [2026] NZERA 509 - employer stopped paying founder to force resignation

EverEdge Global Limited stopped paying founder and CEO Paul Adams while he continued working from Amsterdam, ignored his repeated requests for payment, and advanced multiple inconsistent explanations later. The ERA found EverEdge deliberately withheld salary to pressure him to resign, amounting to unjustified constructive dismissal. Awards totalled $267,640.69, including salary arrears, six months' lost remuneration, KiwiSaver, $30,000 compensation and a $7,500 good-faith penalty.

Carol Chesmar v Rooney Earthmoving Limited [2026] NZERA 502 - redundancy consultation was more apparent than real

Carol Chesmar had worked for Rooney Earthmoving Limited for more than nine years when her labourer position was disestablished. The ERA accepted that the redundancy was not a sham and that Rooney Earthmoving had genuine work and financial concerns. However, it withheld relevant financial and operational information, failed to consult over the end of Mrs Chesmar's Taiko landfill deployment, had effectively decided by the start of consultation that her role would go, and gave her no meaningful opportunity to influence the outcome. The dismissal was unjustified. Rooney Earthmoving was ordered to pay $14,471.60 gross lost remuneration and $25,000 compensation.

Philip Powell v OH and N Contracting Limited and Bradley Mooney [2026] NZERA 481 - genuine redundancy reason but no consultation, notice-pay breach and director recovery

Philip Powell was employed by OH and N Contracting Limited as a site foreman in a logging operation. The ERA accepted there was some genuine business basis for redundancy because the logging work was nearing completion, the company had not secured other work, and the need for workers was reducing. But the dismissal was still unjustified because OH and N did not follow any real good-faith consultation process before ending Mr Powell's employment. The employer also wrongly used annual holiday pay instead of paying notice wages, failed to provide wage and time records when requested, and was ordered to pay compensation, lost wages, unpaid wages, penalties, and to allow limited personal recovery against the director if the company could not pay...

Browse topics