Juliet Hull v Sleaktek Limited and Robert Lawrence [2026] NZERA 579

Sleaktek stopped paying chief executive Juliet Hull, pursued a predetermined redundancy process and later relied on serious-misconduct accusations that had never been fairly put to her. The Employment Relations Authority upheld her unjustified dismissal and disadvantage claims and made substantial monetary orders.

A start-up running out of funds

Ms Hull became Sleaktek's chief executive in late 2022. The start-up was developing a waterproof biodegradable coating intended to replace some single-use plastics. Ms Hull successfully raised funds and worked with the company's executives and potential investors.

By April 2024 Sleaktek had almost exhausted the funds available for salaries. Sole director Robert Lawrence directed that Ms Hull no longer be paid. Proposals to inject funds, defer salary or exchange work for equity were rejected.

A predetermined redundancy

Sleaktek proposed making Ms Hull's position redundant. When she sought supporting information, it refused on the basis that she already knew the company's financial circumstances. The evidence showed Mr Lawrence had said the business would need to restructure so Ms Hull was “out”, regardless of what other funding arrangements might be reached.

The Authority found that the outcome was predetermined. Ms Hull was deprived of a genuine opportunity to influence the decision or propose alternatives such as a salary reduction, deferral or equity arrangement. That established unjustified disadvantage.

Misconduct allegations did not rescue the dismissal

Sleaktek's correspondence mixed redundancy with allegations of serious misconduct. In the Authority, it argued that misconduct was the correct basis for dismissal, including alleged failure to obtain enough investment and an attempted “hostile takeover” through discussions about future shareholding tables.

The Authority rejected those allegations on the facts. Raising funds was not Ms Hull's sole duty; her written position description contained broad executive responsibilities. The shareholding discussions were known to and initially positively received by Mr Lawrence. They were exploratory discussions rather than a takeover attempt.

More fundamentally, none of the supposed misconduct was properly particularised and put to Ms Hull before dismissal. She had no opportunity to respond, and no fair disciplinary process occurred. Sleaktek could not retrospectively use those allegations to justify ending her employment.

Unjustified disadvantage

Alongside the predetermined restructure, Mr Lawrence criticised Ms Hull's integrity and competence in front of executives, advisers and third parties with whom she needed continuing professional relationships. The Authority found that airing personalised criticisms publicly rather than raising concerns privately and fairly caused additional unjustified disadvantage.

Substantial remedies and director liability

The Authority awarded $45,000 compensation across the dismissal and disadvantage grievances and $50,000 gross for lost remuneration. It also ordered unpaid salary and holiday pay, contractual notice and termination holiday pay, together with continuing interest.

Sleaktek was penalised for failing to pay wages and comply with the employment agreement. Mr Lawrence was found to have personally incited, instigated, aided or abetted a breach and was ordered to pay a $1,500 penalty. He was also found involved in employment-standard breaches, allowing recovery from him of qualifying amounts Sleaktek cannot pay.

Why this case matters

Hull v Sleaktek shows the danger of changing dismissal explanations after the event. Financial difficulty can support a genuine redundancy, but it does not remove consultation obligations. Misconduct is a different basis requiring clear allegations, disclosure, a fair opportunity to answer and genuine consideration before any decision.

Read the full ERA determination (embedded)

If the embedded PDF does not load, use the button below.

Mobile / tablet tip: Some browsers do not display embedded PDFs reliably. Use the Open button above.

Source: Employment Relations Authority determination hosted on determinations.era.govt.nz.