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
Ronald Thomas Shea v STLand Contracting Limited (in liquidation) [2026] NZERA 420 - dismissed by phone without a process

Ronald Thomas Shea was told by phone that there was no more work for him after his trucking and contracting hours fell sharply. STLand Contracting Limited had genuine financial pressure and could have commenced a workplace change process, but it did nothing. The ERA found a clear dismissal without consultation, found that Mr Shea had also been bullied in an unsafe workplace, and ordered $45,600 in notice pay, lost wages, compensation and costs...

Ilalio Solomona v Auckland Council [2026] NZERA 418 - conflict of interest dismissal unjustified

Auckland Council summarily dismissed a fitness instructor over an undeclared personal-training business and three social-media videos filmed at a Council leisure centre. The ERA held that the Council relied on policies which did not in substance fit the alleged conflict, failed to raise the contractual obligations it might have relied on, and pursued discipline over matters known long beforehand without first discussing them in good faith. The dismissal was unjustified. Remedies were reduced by 10 percent for the employee's use of customers and the workplace to promote his own business...

Neil Hall v Consultex Company Limited [2026] NZERA 410 - genuine redundancy but unjustified process

Neil Hall's Northland asbestos-surveyor and mould-testing role was genuinely disestablished for commercial reasons, but Consultex Company Limited failed to consult in good faith. It did not meaningfully answer Mr Hall's request for financial information, failed to engage with his redeployment question, and sent a response that strongly suggested the decision had already been made before consultation closed. The ERA found unjustified dismissal and ordered $8,000 compensation, with no reduction for contribution...

Aaron Potter v Talley's Limited [2026] NZERA 412 - flawed HSR election disciplinary process and unjustified dismissal

Aaron Potter was summarily dismissed by Talley's Limited after a complaint connected with an election for a health and safety representative. The ERA found Talley's had not properly investigated the complaint, had not clearly set out the allegations or supporting information, had not given Mr Potter a fair opportunity to respond, and could not reasonably conclude that he had bullied, intimidated, or attempted to influence the vote. Mr Potter was awarded $20,000 compensation and $7,226.25 gross lost remuneration, no contribution was found...

Sophie Kennett v Polygon GY Developments Limited [2026] NZERA 405 - engineered resignation, redundancy and Holidays Act entitlements

Sophie Kennett was required to resign before holiday leave and then re-employed after the break. The ERA held that Polygon had manufactured the termination to minimise Holidays Act liabilities, meaning her employment was continuous. It also found a later redundancy dismissal unjustified because the business sale remained uncertain, redeployment was not properly considered, relevant information was withheld, and no contractual notice was provided. The Authority ordered compensation, lost wages, notice pay, Holidays Act entitlements, wage arrears, interest and a penalty...

Rakai Tawhiwhirangi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2026] NZERA 402 - unjustified dismissal after self-defence acquittal

The Department of Corrections dismissed Principal Corrections Officer Rakai Tawhiwhirangi after he used force on a prisoner and did not report the incident. Although he had been acquitted of assault on the basis of self-defence, Corrections revisited the same factual questions and reached the opposite conclusions. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified because Corrections blurred the criminal and employment issues, did not properly identify and assess the remaining policy breaches, allowed a conflicted decision maker to continue, and relied on conduct that was not put as an allegation. Reinstatement was declined, but the Authority ordered $17,000 compensation and $19,882.50 lost wages after a 15 percent contribution reduction...

Browse topics