Kyle Horsefield v Eurocars Limited [2026] NZERA 293

This case is a useful warning about the loose use of "casual" employment agreements. Eurocars Limited, trading as Oceanic Cars and Car4Every1, labelled a new salesperson as casual and then sent a text message saying his casual employment was terminated because he was busy with a lawyer and physio. The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) found the real relationship was not a series of discrete casual engagements. Mr Horsefield was a permanent employee working on an as-required basis, the text was a summary dismissal, and the dismissal was unjustified. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

Background

Mr Horsefield was employed by Eurocars as a Sales Representative from 12 November 2024. Eurocars operated vehicle sales businesses under the names Oceanic Cars and Car4Every1. Mr Durgesh Durgesh was Eurocars' sole director, and his wife, Ms Usha Yadav, was a 50 percent shareholder. Ms Yadav had direct day-to-day interactions with Mr Horsefield about when he was to work.

On 21 November 2024, after only a short period of employment, Mr Horsefield received a text message from Eurocars. The text said Eurocars understood he was busy with his lawyer and physio, but that it wanted someone to come to work on time. It then said, "Please accept the notice for your casual employment termination."

Mr Horsefield said that text summarily dismissed him from permanent employment. Eurocars denied there was a dismissal. Its position was that Mr Horsefield was casual, and that the text simply meant he would not be offered any more casual work.

The employer's witness did not attend the investigation meeting

A notable feature of the case was that Eurocars did not have a witness attend the investigation meeting. Mr Durgesh had provided an unsigned witness statement, but Mr Wood told the ERA on the morning of the investigation meeting that Mr Durgesh was in India. No adjournment had been sought in advance, even though Eurocars had known of the investigation meeting date since 14 August 2025.

The ERA decided to proceed. Mr Horsefield opposed an adjournment because he had taken time off work to attend and could not afford to do so again. Eurocars had not arranged for another witness, such as Ms Yadav, to attend even though she had direct dealings with Mr Horsefield and had sent the termination text. The practical effect was that Mr Durgesh's evidence was not sworn or affirmed, and it could not be tested by Authority questioning or cross-examination.

The employment agreement said "casual", but that was not the end of the question

The case turned heavily on whether Mr Horsefield was truly casual or whether he was a permanent employee whose hours were allocated as required. The written agreement used the word "casual" and said Eurocars did not guarantee minimum or maximum work. It also said Mr Horsefield could accept or decline shifts offered to him.

However, the ERA emphasised that the label "casual" is not decisive. Casual employment is not defined in the Employment Relations Act, and the reality of the relationship must be assessed in the round. The issue was whether the parties intended a series of separate, stand-alone engagements, or whether there was an ongoing employment relationship with mutual obligations between periods of work.

The surrounding facts mattered. The job advertisement did not refer to casual employment. It sought enthusiastic staff, said no experience was required, and said training could be provided. Mr Horsefield said he told Mr Durgesh he was seeking full-time work, and that he raised his existing physio appointments and appointments with the family lawyer before accepting the role. The ERA preferred Mr Horsefield's evidence on that point because it made practical sense for him to raise those commitments before employment began.

The 90-day trial period discussion was important context

Mr Horsefield said he queried why the agreement was described as casual when he understood he was being offered full-time work. He said Mr Durgesh told him the agreement would say "casual employment" because that was the easiest way for Eurocars to end the employment relationship. Mr Horsefield also said he suggested that Eurocars use a 90-day trial period clause instead if the employer wanted time to assess suitability.

Mr Durgesh's statement acknowledged that Mr Horsefield had proposed a 90-day trial period, but said that was rejected because it was not what Mr Durgesh was looking for. That evidence was damaging to Eurocars. It supported the view that the casual label was being used as a termination convenience rather than because the relationship was genuinely casual.

Appointments and attendance

Mr Horsefield had several existing personal commitments during the short period of employment. He had physio appointments after a broken ankle, and legal appointments about his recently deceased grandmother's will. He also asked not to work on 15 November 2024 because his stepfather had a medical event and was taken to hospital.

The ERA accepted that Mr Horsefield informed Eurocars when these appointments arose and was given permission to attend them. Eurocars did not warn him that attending those appointments was a problem, or that his employment was at risk because of them. The employer also had not given him clear advance advice about what days and hours it expected him to work, which would have allowed him to rearrange appointments around work.

Ms Yadav also directed Mr Horsefield about work times. She sent him home at 3pm on one day because there was no more work, told him to come in at 11am the next day, and sent the termination text on 21 November 2024. These facts cut against Eurocars' later attempt to say the relationship simply ended as a casual engagement.

Finding: permanent employment on an as-required basis

The ERA found Mr Horsefield was a permanent employee. He had no fixed or set hours, but there was a mutual expectation of an ongoing employment relationship. Eurocars expected him to be available when it wanted him to work, which was demonstrated by the fact it terminated his employment when he did not attend during the times it wanted him there. Mr Horsefield, for his part, wanted full-time work and needed income.

The ERA held that the employment relationship continued between days when he worked and days when he did not work. It did not end each day or week and then restart again. He was therefore entitled to minimum code protections as a permanent employee, even though the working days and hours were to be allocated on an as-required basis.

Good faith and the employment agreement

Eurocars breached good faith by failing to make clear, before the relationship began, that it said Mr Horsefield was only wanted on a casual as-required basis for November and December 2024. It also failed to make clear how and when work would be allocated, which left Mr Horsefield unable to plan his physio and legal appointments for times when Eurocars did not require him.

Eurocars also breached the employment agreement. Clause 18.1 required one hour's notice, or one hour's pay in lieu of notice, before ending the employment. Eurocars gave neither. The ERA treated that breach as part of the dismissal grievance and did not impose a separate penalty.

Why the text message was a dismissal

The ERA rejected the argument that this was merely the end of a casual engagement. Mr Horsefield expected to continue working, Eurocars still needed his services, and the evidence showed the parties intended the relationship to continue at least beyond 20 November 2024. The only reason he did not continue was that Eurocars had decided he was unreliable because of time away from work.

The text message was therefore a summary dismissal. It was the employer's unilateral act ending the employment relationship, without notice or pay in lieu.

Why the dismissal was unjustified

The ERA applied the s 103A justification test: whether the employer's actions, and how it acted, were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time. The answer was no. The dismissal came "out of the blue". Mr Horsefield was not told what Eurocars was concerned about, was not given information, was not invited to comment, and was not given an opportunity to respond before the decision was made.

Eurocars failed all four minimum procedural fairness requirements in s 103A(3). It did not sufficiently investigate its attendance and availability concerns. It did not raise those concerns with Mr Horsefield. It did not give him a reasonable opportunity to respond. It therefore could not genuinely consider his response before dismissing him.

The dismissal was also substantively unjustified. Mr Horsefield had disclosed upcoming appointments before accepting the role and had been told they could be worked around. Eurocars never told him that position had changed. It gave him no warning, no guidance, no counselling and no opportunity to reschedule appointments to meet Eurocars' expectations.

The ERA said a fair and reasonable employer could only dismiss for poor attendance after a graduated warning process, where the employee had been told about the issue and given an opportunity to address it. Mr Horsefield had only worked six days. There was no serious misconduct allegation, and a fair and reasonable employer could not summarily dismiss him in these circumstances.

Remedies

Lost remuneration: $6,345 gross

Eurocars argued no lost remuneration should be payable because Mr Horsefield was receiving ACC payments. That argument failed. The ERA held that ACC payments did not void his entitlement to compensation for remuneration lost because of an unjustified dismissal. He was physically and medically able to perform certain work, including the Sales Representative work Eurocars had employed him to do.

Mr Horsefield mitigated his loss. He applied for work through Seek and Trade Me, registered with Work and Income New Zealand, obtained some casual work with a former employer, and did odd jobs including gardening work. The ERA calculated lost remuneration at 12 weeks, based on three working days per week, 7.5 hours per day, at $23.50 per hour. That produced $528.75 gross per week and a total award of $6,345 gross.

Compensation: $6,000

Mr Horsefield and his mother gave evidence about the effect of the unjustified dismissal. The ERA did not set out the private details in the determination, but recorded that Mr Horsefield gave evidence of the shock, hurt and distress caused by the sudden and unexpected summary dismissal. His mother's affidavit supported his evidence.

Eurocars was ordered to pay $6,000 compensation under s 123(1)(c)(i) for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings.

No contribution reduction

The ERA found no blameworthy conduct by Mr Horsefield. He had told Eurocars before employment about appointments he had to attend. After employment began, he asked for and received permission to attend appointments as they arose. He did not know Eurocars considered those appointments problematic or that it considered him unreliable. Independent proof of each appointment was provided, and all appointments were genuine.

Why this case matters

This determination is a practical example of the difference between a true casual arrangement and permanent employment with variable or as-required hours. Employers sometimes assume that inserting the word "casual" gives them a broad right to end the relationship without process. That is wrong. The ERA will look at the real substance of the relationship, not just the label on the first page of the agreement.

The case also shows the danger of using casual agreements as a substitute for trial periods or performance management. If an employer wants to test suitability, it must use lawful mechanisms and follow fair process. It cannot simply call the relationship casual, rely on uncertainty over hours, and then terminate by text when it becomes unhappy about attendance.

Practical takeaways

• The label is not decisive: a "casual" agreement can still be found to be permanent employment if the reality shows an ongoing relationship.
• As-required hours are not the same as casual: permanent employees can have variable hours, but they still retain dismissal protections.
• Attendance concerns need warning and process: an employer should raise concerns, explain expectations, and give a genuine opportunity to improve before dismissal.
• Text message terminations are risky: a short text can amount to a summary dismissal if it ends the employment relationship at the employer's initiative.
• Good faith requires clarity: employers must be responsive and communicative about work allocation, especially where appointment planning and availability are relevant.
• ACC is not a magic answer to wage loss: receiving ACC payments did not automatically remove the employee's entitlement to lost remuneration after an unjustified dismissal.
• Evidence at the investigation meeting matters: an unsigned, untested witness statement is a poor substitute for a witness who attends and can be questioned.

Read the full ERA determination (embedded)

If the embedded PDF does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.

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.