CHAUHAN and Anor v SD & SD INVESTMENTS LIMITED and Ors [2025] NZERA 309

This page summarises and embeds an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. It is not legal advice.

Story in plain English

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

In summary, The investigation meeting commenced in Hamilton on 19 February 2025 to hear the remainder of the evidence. After that, After the 20 February 2025 investigation meeting written submissions were received for the Chauhans and from the Kollurus. Later, At the 19 February 2025 investigation meeting Mr Chauhan gave evidence that he expected to be paid for hours above 40. The determination records that Difficulties with the Kollurus' arguments that they were unaware of Ms Chauhan's work were identified in the preliminary determination.6 [48] The Authority found Ms Chauhan's evidence regarding her hours credible and supported by the roster and time record documentation. The Authority notes that The email refers to attaching minutes and forms for share transfers and Mr Chauhan's director resignation. Ultimately, The Authority concluded that Mr Chauhan was dismissed, being sent away from the business. In the end, An email was later provided to the Authority from B stating that on 20 April 2021 Mr Chauhan sold his car to B as a settlement of outstanding debts owed to him ($8,000 to him and $5,000 to A).

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
• The parties are CHAUHAN and Anor (employee) and SD & SD INVESTMENTS LIMITED and Ors (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 19 and 20 February 2025 and by audio- visual link.
• Authority member: Nicola Craig.

Key events described

• The investigation meeting commenced in Hamilton on 19 February 2025 to hear the remainder of the evidence.
• After the 20 February 2025 investigation meeting written submissions were received for the Chauhans and from the Kollurus.
• At the 19 February 2025 investigation meeting Mr Chauhan gave evidence that he expected to be paid for hours above 40.
• Difficulties with the Kollurus' arguments that they were unaware of Ms Chauhan's work were identified in the preliminary determination.6 [48] The Authority found Ms Chauhan's evidence regarding her hours credible and supported by the roster and time record documentation.
• The email refers to attaching minutes and forms for share transfers and Mr Chauhan's director resignation.
• The Authority concluded that Mr Chauhan was dismissed, being sent away from the business.
• An email was later provided to the Authority from B stating that on 20 April 2021 Mr Chauhan sold his car to B as a settlement of outstanding debts owed to him ($8,000 to him and $5,000 to A).
• Examples include getting him to sign director/shareholder meeting notes and resignation as director, along with transfer of shares.

Decision markers

• Difficulties with the Kollurus' arguments that they were unaware of Ms Chauhan's work were identified in the preliminary determination.6 [48] The Authority found Ms Chauhan's evidence regarding her hours credible and supported by the roster and time record documentation.
• The Authority concluded that Mr Chauhan was dismissed, being sent away from the business.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $10,000, $1,000.00
• Costs: Costs awarded.

Note: figures above are extracted from the orders section (or the final orders wording). Check the PDF for full context and any gross/net directions.

Practical takeaways

• Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.

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.