LGY v Board of Trustees [2025] NZERA 809 - Interim reinstatement granted (non-publication order)
In LGY v Board of Trustees [2025] NZERA 809, the ERA (Christchurch) granted interim reinstatement pending the determination of an unjustified dismissal grievance. The Authority applied the interim reinstatement test (serious question, balance of convenience, overall justice) and held the applicant had a strong arguable case on both unjustified dismissal and reinstatement, so interim reinstatement was ordered. The determination includes a non-publication order and the parties are anonymised.
This page summarises and displays the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination LGY v Board of Trustees [2025] NZERA 809. This is an interim reinstatement decision (not the final merits determination).
Quick facts
- Citation: [2025] NZERA 809
- ERA registry: Christchurch
- Member: Peter van Keulen
- Investigation meeting: 1 December 2025
- Date of determination: 15 December 2025
- Application decided: Interim reinstatement pending the substantive investigation
Background (high level)
The applicant (LGY) was employed as a teacher and deputy principal. The respondent is the board of a school (referred to as "the Board"). The Board decided to dismiss LGY on notice for alleged serious misconduct relating to the use of school funds in circumstances said to benefit the applicant's family.
LGY filed an unjustified dismissal personal grievance and sought remedies including reinstatement and compensation. Before the final merits investigation, LGY applied for interim reinstatement so that she could return to work while the case proceeds.
What this determination does (and does not) decide
- This determination: decides whether interim reinstatement should be ordered now.
- It does not: finally decide whether the dismissal was justified or what final remedies (if any) will be awarded.
- Evidence: the Authority notes this was decided on untested affidavit evidence, which is a key reason anonymisation was ordered.
The legal test for interim reinstatement
The Authority applied the usual interim relief approach:
- Serious question to be tried: the claim must be more than frivolous or vexatious.
- Balance of convenience: whether the practical impact favours an interim order or the status quo.
- Overall justice: a final check on fairness in the circumstances pending the substantive outcome.
Why interim reinstatement was granted
On the interim record, the Authority concluded there were serious questions to be tried and described the applicant's case as strong on both unjustified dismissal and reinstatement. The Authority accepted reinstatement would be difficult given relationship damage, but considered it could be achieved successfully and remained the primary remedy where practicable and reasonable.
Outcome
- Interim reinstatement ordered: the Board must reinstate LGY to her role at the school pending the investigation and determination of her personal grievances.
- Undertaking as to damages: the order was made in reliance on the applicant's undertaking as to damages.
- Costs: reserved.
Practical takeaways
- Interim reinstatement can move quickly: if a replacement hire is imminent, the balance of convenience may favour interim reinstatement.
- Evidence matters even at interim stage: affidavit evidence and clear decision-making records are critical.
- Reinstatement remains the starting point: employers opposing reinstatement need focused evidence on why reinstatement is not practicable and not reasonable.
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![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.
Jingkai Wang v Envoco Ltd [2025] NZERA 845 - Not dismissed, but unjustified disadvantage and $1,500 compensation
In Jingkai Wang v E|nvoco Ltd [2025] NZERA 845, the ERA found the employee was not dismissed and had resigned. A limited unjustified disadvantage was established due to the employer's failure to respond to concerns raised in the resignation email. The ERA awarded $1,500 compensation (after a 25% reduction for blameworthy conduct). Costs were reserved.