ClickCease
No Win No Fee Employment Advocates
Employee Case Form 0800 946 549

Limei Wang v Serenity Float Clinic Limited, Charl Eksteen and Jodi Eksteen [2025] NZERA 599 - Unjustified redundancy dismissal, wage and leave arrears, $15,000 compensation, leave to recover arrears from a person involved

Unfair Dismissal Cases 36 Redundancy 8

In Limei Wang v Serenity Float Clinic Limited [2025] NZERA 599 (Wellington), the ERA found Ms Wang was unjustifiably dismissed on redundancy grounds without the mandatory disclosure and consultation required by s 4(1A). The Authority ordered $2,035.50 unpaid wages, $4,714.67 unpaid holiday entitlements, $970.20 unpaid notice, and $15,000 compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings. Because the company was insolvent, the ERA granted leave under s 142Y to recover wage and holiday pay arrears from the director Charl Eksteen as a "person involved" in the employment standards breaches. Penalties were declined and costs were reserved.

Employer Quick Contact Form Employee? (go to employee page)

This page summarises and displays the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination Limei Wang v Serenity Float Clinic Limited, Charl Eksteen and Jodi Eksteen [2025] NZERA 599 (Wellington, Member Geoff O'Sullivan, determination dated 26 September 2025).

At a glance: Serenity Float Clinic Limited (SFC) became insolvent, transferred its business to a third party, and then terminated Ms Wang's employment on redundancy grounds without the mandatory disclosure and consultation required by s 4(1A) of the Employment Relations Act 2000. The ERA found an unjustified dismissal, awarded arrears and $15,000 compensation, and (because SFC was insolvent) gave leave to recover wage and holiday pay arrears from director Charl Eksteen as a "person involved" under s 142Y / s 142W.
Direct link to the full ERA determination (PDF): https://determinations.era.govt.nz/assets/elawpdf/2025/2025-NZERA-599.pdf

Quick facts

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 599
  • Registry: Wellington
  • Member: Geoff O'Sullivan
  • Investigation meeting: 1 May 2025 (Wellington)
  • Determination date: 26 September 2025
  • Applicant: Limei Wang (Lily)
  • Respondents: Serenity Float Clinic Limited (SFC), Charl Eksteen, Jodi Eksteen

What happened

Ms Wang started work for SFC on 10 January 2022. Her employment ended in writing on 24 December 2023. SFC's evidence was that it became insolvent in early December 2023, with debts said to exceed $300,000 and further sums owed to Inland Revenue. The lease was terminated and plant/equipment seized.

On 11 December 2023, SFC transferred its business to an independent third party, Serenity Wellness Centre Limited (SWCL), as an arm's length transaction. Ms Wang was introduced to SWCL directors the same day. However, on 24 December 2023 she received a letter telling her employment was terminated and outstanding wages would not be paid.

Core issue: Even where redundancy is genuine, employers must disclose relevant information and consult. The ERA said consultation in a redundancy context is mandatory and specifically referenced the disclosure and consultation duty in s 4(1A).

Findings (merits)

  • Redundancy reason: SFC's reasons may have been genuine, but the process fell below the s 103A standard because there was no consultation.
  • Unjustified dismissal: Ms Wang was dismissed on 24 December 2023 and the dismissal was unjustified.
  • Arrears owed: unpaid wages, leave entitlements, and notice pay were ordered.
  • Compensation: $15,000 for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings.

Transfer of business and disadvantage

Ms Wang also alleged she was disadvantaged because she was not told in advance about the business transfer and employee protection provisions. The ERA accepted there was no "normal" advance warning because SFC's collapse was sudden and catastrophic, but confirmed Ms Wang was entitled to believe SFC remained her employer until her employment ended. The ERA's key findings and remedies focused on the unjustified dismissal, arrears, compensation, and s 142Y leave for recovery.

Summary of orders (money)

Payable within 28 days of 26 September 2025

Order Amount
Unpaid wages (12 December to 24 December 2023) $2,035.50
Unpaid holiday entitlements $4,714.67
Unpaid notice (one week) $970.20
Compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings $15,000.00
Total of the main money orders $22,720.37
Note: The ERA discussed insolvency concerns and "preferred creditor" arguments, but still made arrears and compensation orders.

Insolvency and s 142Y leave to recover from a "person involved"

The ERA recorded it was made clear at the investigation meeting that SFC would not be in a position to pay any awards because it was insolvent. Ms Wang applied for and was granted leave under s 142Y to recover employment standards arrears (wages and holiday pay) from any "person involved" in the breach (s 142W).

Who was the "person involved"?

The ERA found Charl Eksteen (a director) was the decision-maker who was knowingly concerned in the failure to pay the arrears of wages and holiday pay. On that basis, he was found to be a "person involved" for the purposes of s 142W.

Practical effect: To the extent SFC does not pay, Mr Eksteen must pay Ms Wang the unpaid wages ($2,035.50) and unpaid annual leave ($4,714.67). The ERA did not treat the unpaid notice item as an "employment standards" breach for s 142W purposes.

Penalties and costs

  • Penalties: declined. The ERA said this was not a case where penalties were appropriate, despite the unfairness to Ms Wang.
  • Costs: reserved, with a standard timetable for any costs memorandum if the parties cannot agree.

Practical takeaways (redundancy and insolvency scenarios)

  • Redundancy consultation is mandatory: even under severe financial distress, employers must disclose relevant information and consult (s 4(1A)).
  • Do not assume insolvency is a defence: the ERA can still make arrears and compensation orders.
  • Employment standards can pierce beyond the company: where a company cannot pay, the ERA can give leave to recover wages and holiday pay arrears from a director or manager who is a "person involved" (s 142Y / s 142W).
  • Notice is treated differently: on the facts here, the ERA treated unpaid notice as contractual (ordered) but not an "employment standards" breach for s 142W recovery.
  • Penalties are discretionary: even where breaches are found, the ERA may decline penalties depending on overall context and culpability.

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.

Open [2025] NZERA 599 (PDF)

Mobile / tablet tip: Some browsers do not display embedded PDFs reliably. Use the "Open" button above.
Need help with a redundancy consultation, wage arrears, or a PG? We can help with strategy, drafting, evidence preparation, and representation in the ERA. (PG = Personal Grievance; ERA = Employment Relations Authority.)

Contact Employee Unfair Dismissal Case Form

Read more
Unfair Dismissal Cases Redundancy Responding to a Personal Grievance
0800 WIN KIWI

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases, Redundancy
Showing 1-6 of 36 related articles
Browse topics
Unfair Dismissal Cases 36 Unfair Dismissal 19 Employment Law Advice For Employers 10 Employment Lawyers 8 Redundancy 8 90 Day Trial 7 Constructive Dismissal 6 Costs 6 No Win No Fee 6 Employment Mediation 5 Casual Employment 3 Covid 19 3 ERA 2 Employment Court 1 Holidays Act 1