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
Philip Powell v OH and N Contracting Limited and Bradley Mooney [2026] NZERA 481 - genuine redundancy reason but no consultation, notice-pay breach and director recovery

Philip Powell was employed by OH and N Contracting Limited as a site foreman in a logging operation. The ERA accepted there was some genuine business basis for redundancy because the logging work was nearing completion, the company had not secured other work, and the need for workers was reducing. But the dismissal was still unjustified because OH and N did not follow any real good-faith consultation process before ending Mr Powell's employment. The employer also wrongly used annual holiday pay instead of paying notice wages, failed to provide wage and time records when requested, and was ordered to pay compensation, lost wages, unpaid wages, penalties, and to allow limited personal recovery against the director if the company could not pay...

Conner Powell v OH and N Contracting Limited and Bradley Mooney [2026] NZERA 480 - genuine redundancy reason but no consultation, notice-pay breach and director recovery

Conner Powell was employed by OH and N Contracting Limited as a forestry worker from November 2022 until his employment ended on redundancy grounds in January 2025. The ERA accepted there was some genuine business basis for redundancy because the logging work was nearing completion, the company had not secured other work, and the need for workers was reducing. But the dismissal was still unjustified because OH and N did not follow a good-faith restructuring process before ending Mr Powell's employment. The employer also wrongly used annual holiday pay instead of notice wages, failed to provide the employment agreement and wage and time records when requested, and was ordered to pay compensation, lost wages, unpaid wages and penalties...

Jia Jia v TBS Trading Limited and Helen Han [2026] NZERA 478 - no employment agreement, late wages and radio-silent dismissal

Jia Jia worked for TBS Trading Limited as a retail sales assistant for about two and a half months. She was not given a written employment agreement, her wages were not always paid on time, and her employment ended after the employer stopped offering her full-time work and then stopped offering her work at all. The ERA found unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage. It ordered two months' lost wages, $12,500 compensation, penalties for failing to provide an employment agreement and late wage payment, costs and the filing fee. Helen Han was not found personally liable for dismissal remedies, but the ERA granted leave for Ms Jia to recover the penalties from Ms Han personally if TBS could not pay them...

OAS v JIK Limited [2026] NZERA 474 - employee dismissed after seeking family violence leave

OAS was employed as a chef by JIK Limited. After a family violence incident involving his ex-partner, OAS told the employer he needed time away from work to keep his children safe, deal with urgent family matters, meet a victim support adviser and pursue protection-order steps. JIK treated his messages as a resignation or abandonment of employment and left him off the next roster. The ERA held that OAS had not resigned or abandoned his job. He was entitled to family violence leave and JIK's decision not to roster him again was a dismissal. The dismissal was unjustified because JIK failed to engage with the family violence situation and dismissed him for missing work when he was entitled to be away. The Authority awarded compensation and lost wages, reduced by 10 percent for contribution...

Duane April v Coatrite Fire Limited [2026] NZERA 466 - visa worker underpaid, racialised comments, unlawful deductions and unjustified dismissal

Duane April came to New Zealand on an accredited employer work visa to work for Coatrite Fire Limited as an industrial/intumescent spray painter. The ERA found he had been unjustifiably disadvantaged by underpayment at $35 rather than the agreed $38 per hour, unauthorised wage deductions, racialised comments, and an unjustified verbal warning. His later dismissal was also unjustified. The employer failed to provide sufficient information about the allegations, unfairly denied remote support from Mr April's father, relied on matters not properly investigated, and dismissed him after a meeting that had ended with an apparent understanding the employment relationship would continue. Coatrite was ordered to pay compensation, lost wages, arrears, interest and a $4,000 penalty, while most of its claimed set-off against Mr April was rejected...

Qi Sun v Keene Construction Limited [2026] NZERA 465 - builder dismissed by text after querying apprenticeship costs

Qi Sun was employed by Keene Construction Limited as an apprentice builder. After he queried an unpaid $300 apprenticeship-cost payment, the company director texted that there was not going to be a company anymore and told him not to bother coming into work. The ERA found it was reasonable for Mr Sun to understand that he had been dismissed. Keene Construction provided no evidence, filed no reply, did not attend the investigation meeting, and did not justify the dismissal. The Authority awarded lost wages, compensation, wage and holiday pay arrears, and costs...

Browse topics