ClickCease

Hurikawa v Walton Mountain Ltd [2026] NZERA 8 - Unjustified dismissal and remedies

Summary of Hurikawa v Walton Mountain Ltd [2026] NZERA 8. The ERA found an unjustified dismissal and ordered lost wages ($6,656) and compensation ($15,000).


This page summarises and displays the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination Hurikawa v Walton Mountain Ltd [2026] NZERA 8. The Authority found the employee was unjustifiably dismissed after a sudden verbal termination with no process and no reason given.

Case summary

  • Citation: Hurikawa v Walton Mountain Ltd [2026] NZERA 8
  • Determination date: 7 January 2026
  • Member: Alyn Higgins
  • Investigation meeting: 11 December 2025 (Tauranga)
  • Applicant: Barlowe Hurikawa
  • Respondent: Walton Mountain Limited
  • Employment: 11 September 2023 to dismissal on 4 October 2023 (farm work)
  • Respondent participation: No appearance and no evidence filed
  • Remedies ordered: $6,656.00 gross lost wages + $15,000.00 compensation (costs reserved)

Full determination (PDF): https://determinations.era.govt.nz/assets/elawpdf/2026/2026-NZERA-8.pdf

What happened

Mr Hurikawa was dismissed suddenly on 4 October 2023. On his evidence, he was told he was "finished" and was not given a reason, a warning, or any opportunity to respond. The Authority recorded that Mr Hurikawa had also requested a written employment agreement but never received one.

Why the ERA found the dismissal unjustified

  • No substantive reason was proved: The employer did not provide evidence of any conduct or performance issue that could justify dismissal.
  • No fair process: There was no investigation, no raising of concerns, no chance to respond, and no genuine consideration of any explanation.
  • Good faith and s 103A standards not met: The Authority applied the statutory test for justification and found the minimum standards were not satisfied.
  • Non-participation harmed the respondent: The matter proceeded by formal proof because the respondent did not attend or file a reply.

Orders made

  • $6,656.00 gross lost wages (compensation for wages lost) - payable within 28 days
  • $15,000.00 compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings - payable within 28 days

Penalties and costs

  • Penalty for no written employment agreement: The Authority recorded the breach could attract a penalty, but a penalty could not be ordered because the penalty action was out of time.
  • Costs: Costs were reserved. The parties were encouraged to resolve costs, or the applicant could file a costs memorandum within 28 days (with a reply due 14 days after service).

Practical lessons for employers

  • Do not dismiss by ambush. If a dismissal is being considered, investigate, put concerns, give a real chance to respond, and document the decision-making.
  • Put employment agreements in writing. This is a statutory requirement and missing documents undermine credibility and increase penalty risk.
  • Engage early. Respond to MBIE mediation, file a Statement in Reply, and attend the investigation meeting. Silence is rarely neutral.
  • Defend the case. Not turning up, not filing a reply, and not producing records usually turns a defendable case into an undefendable one.

Read the full determination

This is a public document hosted on the ERA determinations database. If the embedded document does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.

Open [2026] NZERA 8 (PDF)

Mobile / tablet tip: Some browsers do not display embedded PDFs reliably. Use the "Open" button above.
Need help with an ERA matter? If you are dealing with an unjustified dismissal claim or need representation at mediation / the ERA, we can assist with strategy, drafting, and settlement.
Read more
Employment Relations Authority (ERA) Employment mediation Costs (ERA and Employment Court)

This page summarises and displays the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination Hurikawa v Walton Mountain Ltd [2026] NZERA 8. The Authority found the employee was unjustifiably dismissed after a sudden verbal termination with no process and no reason given.

Case summary

  • Citation: Hurikawa v Walton Mountain Ltd [2026] NZERA 8
  • Determination date: 7 January 2026
  • Member: Alyn Higgins
  • Investigation meeting: 11 December 2025 (Tauranga)
  • Applicant: Barlowe Hurikawa
  • Respondent: Walton Mountain Limited
  • Employment: 11 September 2023 to dismissal on 4 October 2023 (farm work)
  • Respondent participation: No appearance and no evidence filed
  • Remedies ordered: $6,656.00 gross lost wages + $15,000.00 compensation (costs reserved)

Full determination (PDF): https://determinations.era.govt.nz/assets/elawpdf/2026/2026-NZERA-8.pdf

What happened

Mr Hurikawa was dismissed suddenly on 4 October 2023. On his evidence, he was told he was "finished" and was not given a reason, a warning, or any opportunity to respond. The Authority recorded that Mr Hurikawa had also requested a written employment agreement but never received one.

Why the ERA found the dismissal unjustified

  • No substantive reason was proved: The employer did not provide evidence of any conduct or performance issue that could justify dismissal.
  • No fair process: There was no investigation, no raising of concerns, no chance to respond, and no genuine consideration of any explanation.
  • Good faith and s 103A standards not met: The Authority applied the statutory test for justification and found the minimum standards were not satisfied.
  • Non-participation harmed the respondent: The matter proceeded by formal proof because the respondent did not attend or file a reply.

Orders made

  • $6,656.00 gross lost wages (compensation for wages lost) - payable within 28 days
  • $15,000.00 compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings - payable within 28 days

Penalties and costs

  • Penalty for no written employment agreement: The Authority recorded the breach could attract a penalty, but a penalty could not be ordered because the penalty action was out of time.
  • Costs: Costs were reserved. The parties were encouraged to resolve costs, or the applicant could file a costs memorandum within 28 days (with a reply due 14 days after service).

Practical lessons for employers

  • Do not dismiss by ambush. If a dismissal is being considered, investigate, put concerns, give a real chance to respond, and document the decision-making.
  • Put employment agreements in writing. This is a statutory requirement and missing documents undermine credibility and increase penalty risk.
  • Engage early. Respond to MBIE mediation, file a Statement in Reply, and attend the investigation meeting. Silence is rarely neutral.
  • Defend the case. Not turning up, not filing a reply, and not producing records usually turns a defendable case into an undefendable one.

Read the full determination

This is a public document hosted on the ERA determinations database. If the embedded document does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.

Open [2026] NZERA 8 (PDF)

Mobile / tablet tip: Some browsers do not display embedded PDFs reliably. Use the "Open" button above.
Need help with an ERA matter? If you are dealing with an unjustified dismissal claim or need representation at mediation / the ERA, we can assist with strategy, drafting, and settlement.
0800 WIN KIWI

Search
Search articles and guides.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
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.

Briar Kennedy v Adulto HR Limited [2026] NZERA 537 - missing trial clause and predetermined performance dismissal

Adulto HR Limited believed Briar Kennedy was employed on a 90-day trial, but the employment agreement contained no trial provision and was not given to her until after she started work. Adulto then purported to extend the trial into a probationary period and dismissed her after 97 days. The ERA found there was no valid trial or probationary period, the qualification and performance grounds did not justify dismissal, and the outcome was predetermined. Adulto was ordered to pay $14,900 gross lost remuneration and $16,000 compensation.

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.

Browse topics