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
David Turner v Big B Cartage Limited [2026] NZERA 581 - seven-minute disciplinary meeting led to unjustified dismissal

Big B Cartage dismissed truck driver David Turner for serious misconduct after a seven-minute meeting without identifying the allegations or disclosing the text message relied on. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified and awarded $9,750 compensation after a 25 percent contribution reduction.

Fatima Fahmy v Minimarc Childcare Centre Inc [2026] NZERA 585 - performance dismissal lacked objective assessment

Minimarc Childcare dismissed ECE teacher Fatima Fahmy for performance after its centre manager remained the principal evaluator despite known relationship and bullying complaints. The ERA found the assessment was not sufficiently objective and ordered reinstatement, lost wages and $25,000 compensation.

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 redundancy process she said was predetermined and later raised serious-misconduct allegations that had not been fairly put to her. The case also concerned director Robert Lawrence's personal involvement.

Browse topics