Catherine Stewart Barrister - Daniel Church LinkedIn emails (context)

Catherine Stewart barrister (and her firm) are central to the email excerpts now being discussed publicly in connection with the Menzies v Corrigan dispute. Daniel Church later posted "Buyer Beware" on LinkedIn about me and employment advocacy. This page records what was said, links the primary sources, and (for transparency) sets out the specific email excerpts that are being discussed.
The major point that I make is that Daniel Church was unable to follow the correct practice and procedure before the Employment Court when insisting on seeking a jail sentence against Levi Menzies. That and several other reasons I explain in this article is why I reacted in the way I did.

Key people: Catherine Stewart Barrister, Daniel Church Senior Staff Barrister, Javana Schiphorst, Jin Park, Simon Schofield (University of Auckland Law School), Prime Focus Security Limited (In Liquidation), Levi Menzies, Nathan Corrigan.

Our contention is simple: while Mr Church talks about advocates, conduct and regulation, he needs to look closer to home at his own case management. In this matter it was managed very poorly, in our opinion.

What Mr Church said (in public)

In his LinkedIn post, Mr Church:

• said he was pleased the issue was being brought into public light;
• said there had been (in his words) "albeit modest" consequences for the behaviour;
• said much of the abusive conduct was directed at him personally;
• supported calls for regulation of employment advocates; and
• added the caution: "Buyer Beware".

He attached a LawNews share urging regulation of employment advocates, and linking to a LawNews article.

The emails: wanker, human brain, moron

These three emails are being cited (and in some cases quoted) as examples of my tone in this dispute. I am not proud of them, and I do not endorse this style of communication. I am including them here because they are already in circulation and because I prefer to deal with criticism by reference to the original documents.

It is amazing that these emails ended up before the Employment Court, particularly the "Human brain email" which was an email I sent around 11 months before the Menzies matter even got to the Employment Court (it was an email labled "without prejudice except as to costs".)

It was dissappointing that the Judge did not record the actual Calderbank offers that were being made by Catherine Stewart Barrister's firm at the time. At the time they wanted $30,000 in damages to be paid to Mr Corrigan and $30,000 plus GST for costs. They later sent me another email reducing the offer to $25,000 for damages and $25,000 plus GST for their costs.

If Mr Menzies was only ordered by the Authority at the time to pay only interest on the principle amount that the company owed to Mr Corrigan (a few thousand dollars) and $4,571.55 for costs, how did Catherine Stewart Barrister get to demanding $60,000 and then $50,000?

Annexure B: "wanker" email (11 October 2024)

"Daniel stop emailing me and ordering me what to do you wanker."

Source: Annexure B (email chain concerning a costs award and payment timing). A copy is provided below in the downloads section.

Annexure C: "human brain" email (24 October 2024)

"Most lawyers I come up against are lacking the R in IRAC ... Lawyers that work in the employment jurisdiction in my opinion are incapable of dealing with matters that require the use of the human brain."

Source: Annexure C (email sent in the context of a without prejudice Calderbank offer). A copy is provided below in the downloads section.

Annexure F: "moron" email (3 December 2024)

"The Employment Court Regulations are being contravened by a moron ... A Claim must be filed for this."

Source: Annexure F (email about procedure and what pleadings were required). A copy is provided below in the downloads section.

Separate email: Simon Schofield and Daniel Church (2 April 2025)

There is also an email exchange involving Simon Schofield (Auckland Law School) and Mr Church, where they check in on each other ("Hope you're OK") and then ("I hope you are ok too"). There was a big deal made about this email exchange as well by Catherine Stewart Barrister before the Employment Court about two men who needed emotional support in relation to an email that I sent them that contained a link to a page where I explain what really happened in the Joyce v Ultimate Siteworks Limited matter.

Why I reacted (A legal analysis: why "moron" was used in an email before the Court)

The background to these exchanges was enforcement of costs and a procedural dispute about how certain relief could properly be sought in the Employment Court. My position was that if a party wanted the Court to determine or enforce certain obligations (and, in particular, compliance related relief), the correct pleading and procedural pathway had to be followed.

I have explained that procedural issue in more detail on this page: menzies-corrigan-advocate-lawyer-conduct. When Mr Church persisted in wanting to seek a jail sentence against Mr Menzies without filing a Form 2 Statement of Claim in the Employment Court, it was only after my raising this as an issue that I called him a "moron". At that time I had seen other posts by Mr Church on LinkedIn about me which I found to be regrettable and unreasonable behaviour directed toward me. The registrar confirmed that I was correct about practice and procedure:

"... compliance order determination stands on its own as a determination and a separate statement of claim would be required in order to seek a compliance order from the Court under s 138(6). In my view, a compliance order is not within the scope of remedies available in a de novo challenge..."

Open email's about jail sentence sought through Statement of Defence

Mr Church said this to us in the thread:

"... This is a de novo challenge; therefore, we do not consider that a fresh Statement of Claim from the First Defendant is required. It is common for a Statement of Defence to ask for increased and/or further remedies on what was awarded by the Authority..."

I disagree. There are good reasons for regulations and use of correct practice and procedure to ensure that natural justice processes are followed. You cannot cut corners.

I accept that the Court was right to tell me off for calling Mr Church a "moron" and I regret having done so. The fact that I called Mr Church a "moron" has since, without my involvement, become widely publicised in the media by Catherine Stewart Barrister and Law News (which I understand Ms Stewart has a connection with through the Law Association, their Law News article is overly critical and scathing).

Other dumb things they did during the case

They don't know how to file a Statement of Defence properly

When the Statement of Claim (Form 1) for the de novo challenge was filed in the Employment Court, and then served on Catherine Stewart Barrister's firm, their Statement of Defence assumed that the entire Corrigan case going back a few years before that was being challenged for the first time (the substantive constructive dismissal claim).

What they failed to understand is that the de novo challenge was only about the compliance order against Mr Menzies. If you are a lawyer working in the Employment Court jurisdiction, you should know that the de novo challenge is only about the decision that is being challenged. Why did they think that?

Short and selective memories

When the case was filed against Mr Menzies personally in the Authority, which is when I first became involved, Javana Schiphorst working for Catherine Stewart Barrister at the time was taking the case against Mr Menzies. At the first Case Management Conference I challenged the numerous erroneous references to Section 142Y and various actions that sought to seek Mr Menzies personally liable for minimum entitlements.

There were no minimum entitlements issues in the case, other than a small Wages Protection Act breach which in our view was not correctly found as there were no deductions from wages, more so it was an issue about Mr Corrigan not being permitted to work. That would at best be a personal grievance for unjustifiable action causing disadvantage, not a minimum entitlements issue.

There was then a second Case Management Conference held for the purpose of giving Ms Schiphorst an opportunity to think about the Statement of Problem and amend it accordingly. This second Case Management Conference was attended by Mr Church who explained the contents of his Statement of Problem and what it sought out to achieve.

Fast forward around a year later and we are having a First Directions Conference with the Employment Court and Mr Church said that he had never had anything to do with the file previously. Why would you say that?

They don't know how the liquidation process works

They also never made a claim with the liquidator of Prime Focus Security Limited (In Liquidation) for Mr Corrigan as an unsecured creditor. The only way that Mr Corrigan would have ever been paid anything would have been directly from Prime Focus Security Limited (In Liquidation). Why did they not lodge that claim with the liquidator?

During the second Case Management Conference before the Employment Relations Authority where relevant documents were being discussed I was asked to obtain from Mr Menzies any financial statements for Prime Focus Security Limited (In Liquidation) that Mr Menzies had access too. That's when Ms Schiphorst and Mr Church exclaimed that Mr Menzies has legal obligations to hold records for 6 years.

The company registered address was with the liquidator when the liquidator was appointed. Mr Menzies was not responsible for holding records as contended by Ms Schiphorst and Mr Church.

Multiple disparaging remarks made about me personally in Employment Relations Authority submissions

In the written submissions filed in the Authority there were many references that were making unjustifiable allegations against me and attacking my personal professional character, these were:

1. "and through his advocate, sent numerous INANE and TIME-WASTING communications to the Authority". (submissions for Applicant para [3]). The definition of INANE: [Adjective: lacking sense or meaning; silly]
2. "... and bluster from his advocate...". (submissions for Applicant para [15](f).
3. "... the Second Respondent's ongoing conduct via the Second Respondent's advocate, Mr Lawrence Anderson, further demonstrated the bullying he received..." (submissions for Applicant para [15](f) below (f) {f is twice}.
4. "then ongoing excessive and egregious communications from the Second Respondent's advocate, the Applicant continues to suffer extreme financial hardship...". (submissions for Applicant para [22]).
5. "and now Lawrence' conduct..." (para [23]).
6. "Second Respondent's advocate's excessive and egregious communications...". (para [26]).

There were no questionable communications from myself, and there are no inane, time-wasting, or bluster, or egregious communications from me. Notwithstanding, my involvement has not been cause of any hardship of Mr Corrigan.

Javana Schiphorst having a heated argument with me at the Authority Investigation Meeting

Ms Schiphorst repetively insisted that I leave the Employment Relations Authority Investigation Meeting room during a break. I asked her why and she said words to the effect that she did not want me rifling through her paperwork. I told her that I would never do such a thing and that I am staying in the room to continue my preparation for the next stages of the Authority's investigation. Ms Schiphorst escalated this hypothetical accusation against me to the point of a shouting match. I told her to take her documents with her when she leaves the room.

They did not know how to withdraw representation in the Court

Things went south between them and their client and they wanted to withdraw from the case. They wrote an email to the Court to try and pull out. I challenged them on that as it must be an interlocutory application where Mr Corrigan gets served and gets to reply on that issue of withdrawal. They had no idea how to do that and when I raised the correct procedure it was news to them.

What's next?

Next I am working on an article that will show that Catherine Stewart Barrister claimed almost 6 days of costs against me at $500 per day and the only work that was actually done on it was a 1 page unsworn affidavit that accompanied a 1 page Notice of Opposition to the Interlocutory Application to seek Non-Party Discovery that Mr Menzies had instructed me to file for him. That is coming very soon. Enjoy.

Primary sources and downloads

If you want to assess this fairly, read the originals. The Court decisions are linked below, and the email annexures are available as PDFs.

Employment Court decisions

• Menzies v Corrigan [2025] NZEmpC 186 (Costs judgment No 2)
• Menzies v Corrigan [2025] NZEmpC 107 (Costs judgment)
• Joyce v Ultimate Siteworks Ltd [2024] NZEmpC 204 (Costs judgment)

Email PDFs

---

Note: This page is commentary and context. It is not legal advice.