ClickCease

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

Hurikawa was abruptly told he was 'finished' by Walton Mountain without a stated reason, warning or opportunity to respond. The ERA therefore had to assess a direct verbal termination against the minimum substantive and procedural requirements in s 103A.

The short answer

The ERA found the dismissal unjustified because the employer established neither a fair reason nor any fair process. Hurikawa was awarded $6,656 gross lost wages and $15,000 compensation, with costs reserved.


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)
0800 WIN KIWI

Search
Search cases, guides and topics.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
Shaun Graves v NZSL Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 669 - contractor became an employee before summary dismissal

Shaun Graves initially worked through his own contracting company, but later moved onto NZSL's PAYE payroll, worked regular hours under its direction and used its equipment. The ERA found he had become an employee from 23 September 2024 and was unjustifiably dismissed when simply told his services were no longer required.

Eric Paul Tillocksingh v Driver Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 663 - resign or be dismissed ultimatum was an unjustified dismissal

After a customer complaint, truck driver Eric Tillocksingh was called into meetings without advance written allegations or warning that dismissal was possible. The ERA preferred his evidence that he was told to resign or be dismissed, found the process fundamentally unfair, and awarded $15,000 compensation plus $17,448.75 lost remuneration.

Ross McCullum v RidgeAir Limited [2026] NZERA 658 - long-serving Chief Pilot was unjustifiably dismissed

After 15 years as RidgeAir's Chief Pilot, Ross McCullum had his work phone disconnected and laptop removed before a meeting at which he was told the business was closing. The ERA found the employer had dismissed him, rejected the later characterisation of his departure as voluntary, and awarded lost wages, compensation and substantial holiday-pay arrears.

Wenpeng Yu v Golden Rooster NZ Trading Ltd [2026] NZERA 699 - one week employee was dismissed, not an abandonment

Golden Rooster said chef Wenpeng Yu abandoned his job after only one week, but WeChat messages supported his evidence that the employer had dismissed him because it was unhappy with his productivity. The ERA found no fair process had been followed and awarded $7,500 compensation, $3,559.20 lost wages and annual holiday pay.

Xuefeng Yang v ERA Home Limited [2026] NZERA 695 - migrant worker was an employee despite employer denying relationship

ERA Home denied that Xuefeng Yang had ever become its employee, despite a signed employment agreement, an approved work visa and evidence that he worked at its construction site. The ERA found an employment relationship existed, upheld unjustified dismissal and disadvantage claims, awarded $23,000 compensation and $8,008.20 lost wages plus holiday pay, and imposed a $3,000 penalty on the company.

Herewini Dickson v Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited [2026] NZERA 693 - serious safety breach but dismissal and suspension unjustified

Ballance established that long-serving employee Herewini Dickson breached a safety SOP and that the conduct was capable of serious misconduct, but its process was still unfair. The ERA found both his suspension and dismissal unjustified because critical evidence was not disclosed, the HiPo classification was not fairly put to him and alternatives to dismissal were not adequately considered. Remedies were reduced 30 percent for contribution.

Browse topics