Jingsheng Liu v Legend International Holdings Limited, Hongyu Holding Limited and Wang Yu [2025] NZERA 702 - Unjustified dismissal by text, redundancy context, arrears, penalties, and leave to pursue a person involved
In Jingsheng Liu v Legend International Holdings Limited, Hongyu Holding Limited and Wang Yu [2025] NZERA 702 (Auckland), the ERA found Mr Liu was unjustifiably dismissed by a text message saying there would be no more work. The ERA ordered $5,440 lost wages (4 weeks) and $15,000 compensation, plus arrears of $5,440 notice pay and $1,937.44 outstanding annual leave (with interest from 24 June 2024). Penalties totalling $8,000 were ordered (paid to the Crown), leave was granted to pursue the manager/director personally for arrears if the company cannot pay, and costs of $3,000 plus the $71.55 filing fee were awarded.
This page summarises and displays the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination Jingsheng Liu v Legend International Holdings Limited, Hongyu Holding Limited and Wang Yu [2025] NZERA 702 (Auckland, Member Robin Arthur, 3 November 2025).
Quick facts
- Citation: [2025] NZERA 702
- Registry: Auckland
- Member: Robin Arthur
- Applicant: Jingsheng Liu
- Respondents: Legend International Holdings Limited (trading as HY Kitchen), Hongyu Holding Limited, and Wang Yu (also known as Louis Wang)
- Investigation meeting: 10 October 2025 (in person and AVL) and 31 October 2025 (AVL)
- Determination date: 3 November 2025
What happened
Mr Liu was employed as a cabinet maker from March 2023 and worked 40 hours per week. The business moved premises in March 2024. Without Mr Liu knowing, operation of the business was transferred from Legend to Hongyu. Wage payments continued to be labelled as "HY Kitchen wages" despite being paid by different entities.
Mr Liu's day-to-day work was arranged and directed by Wang Yu (Louis Wang). Companies Office records showed Mr Wang was a director of Legend, while Hongyu's director/shareholder was Mr Wang's wife.
The text message that ended the employment
On 29 June 2024, Mr Liu received a text message (translated from Chinese) saying there would be no more work the following week because the market was bad, and telling workers to find temporary work "for support" until things improved.
After Mr Liu followed up in July and August 2024, he was repeatedly told there was no work. He received no further pay from the week beginning 1 July 2024. The ERA found that, in substance, the 29 June text message was a unilateral termination without notice, and the employment had already ended by the time of later messages.
Findings
- Unjustified dismissal: The ERA found Hongyu unjustifiably dismissed Mr Liu by text message on 29 June 2024.
- Unjustified disadvantage: The ERA did not need a separate disadvantage finding because those issues formed part of the dismissal conduct.
- No contribution reduction: No reduction was made for contributory conduct.
Orders for the personal grievance (remedies)
Payable by Hongyu within 28 days
| Remedy | Amount |
|---|---|
| Lost wages (4 weeks) (ss 123(1)(b) and 128) | $5,440.00 |
| Compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings (s 123(1)(c)(i)) | $15,000.00 |
| Total remedies | $20440.00.ToString("N2") |
Arrears: notice pay, annual leave, and interest
Payable by Hongyu within 28 days (with interest)
| Arrears item | Amount |
|---|---|
| Notice pay arrears (4 weeks "reasonable notice") | $5,440.00 |
| Outstanding annual leave entitlements | $1,937.44 |
| Total arrears (before interest) | $7,377.44 |
Penalties and "person involved" (director/manager exposure)
The ERA found employment-standards breaches (including failures around records, agreements, and final pay). Mr Wang was found to be a "person involved" in those breaches, and the ERA granted leave to pursue Mr Wang personally for any arrears if Hongyu cannot pay.
Penalties (payable to the Crown)
| Penalty | Amount |
|---|---|
| Hongyu - ER Act s 65 (no written employment agreement) | $2,000.00 |
| Hongyu - Wages Protection Act s 4 (wages not paid when due) | $2,000.00 |
| Hongyu - Holidays Act ss 24 and 25 (annual leave entitlements not fully paid) | $2,000.00 |
| Hongyu - ER Act s 130(2) (wage/time records not provided) | $1,000.00 |
| Legend - ER Act s 130(2) (wage/time records not provided) | $1,000.00 |
| Total penalties | $8,000.00 |
Costs and reimbursement
| Costs item | Amount |
|---|---|
| Costs contribution (2/3 of the usual daily tariff) | $3,000.00 |
| Reimbursement of filing fee | $71.55 |
| Total (costs + fee) | $3071.55.ToString("N2") |
Practical takeaways (redundancy and final pay)
- You cannot "pause" employment by text: If there is genuinely no work, you still need a lawful process and clear documentation.
- Redundancy requires consultation: Genuine business reasons are not enough on their own - the employer must consult, consider alternatives, and give proper notice or pay in lieu.
- Trial periods are technical: A 90-day trial period requires a valid written clause and strict compliance - it does not arise automatically because a business structure changes.
- Final pay matters: Notice pay, annual leave entitlements, and deductions must be correct and lawful. Unauthorised deductions can create additional exposure.
- Records and agreements: Employers must keep wage/time records and provide immediate access on request, and must provide written employment agreements where required.
- Director/manager exposure: If employment standards are breached, the ERA can identify a "person involved" and allow personal recovery of arrears if the company cannot pay.
Read the full determination
This is a public document hosted on the ERA determinations database. If the embedded PDF does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.
Contact Employee Unfair Dismissal Case Form
Related articles
Browse all articles
Unjustified redundancy: when redundancy becomes an unfair dismissal personal grievance
The Employment Court upheld a determination of the Employment Relations Authority that an employer pay its former employee substantial compensation for hurt and humiliation in remedy of the redundancy having been found unjustifiable.
![Payal v JB Hospitality Ltd [2026] NZERA 18 - Constructive dismissal, wage arrears, and premium payments](/Images/EmploymentAdvocatesAuckland.jpg)
Payal v JB Hospitality Ltd [2026] NZERA 18 - Constructive dismissal, wage arrears, and premium payments
A practical summary of Payal v JB Hospitality Ltd [2026] NZERA 18. The ERA found constructive dismissal and ordered compensation, lost wages, wage and holiday arrears, and repayment of an unlawful premium payment.
Jagjit Singh v L&B Foods Ltd t/a Kafal Indian Cuisine [2026] NZERA 13 - Unjustified dismissal and wage arrears
Jagjit Singh v L&B Foods Ltd [2026] NZERA 13. The Authority upheld unjustified dismissal, ordered compensation and lost wages (reduced for contributory conduct), and ordered wage and public holiday arrears with interest.
George King v Off the Wall Construction Ltd [2026] NZERA 14 - 90-day trial invalid, unjustified dismissal
In George King v Off the Wall Construction Ltd [2026] NZERA 14, the ERA held the 90-day trial was invalid because the employee had already worked (and been paid) before signing. The dismissal was unjustified and the Authority awarded lost wages and compensation.
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).
JHJ v IXX [2026] NZERA 2 - Unjustified dismissal and temporary non-publication
JHJ v IXX [2026] NZERA 2 is an unjustified dismissal determination. The ERA ordered $14,040.00 gross lost wages (3 months cap) and $17,500.00 compensation, with costs reserved. The determination includes a temporary non-publication order.