Menzies v Corrigan Advocate and Lawyer conduct
Mr Menzies lost company limited liability protection over grievance remedies in the ERA. We appealed to the Employment Court, but discontinued when it became futile. Catherine Stewart Barrister team repeatedly made veiled threats to seek a jail sentence against Mr Menzies in event of non-payment. Fresh evidence has led to a judicial review now underway.
Catherine Stewart Barrister Costs - Menzies v Corrigan [2025] NZEmpC 186
Mr Menzies was argued out of his limited liability protection in relation to grievance remedies (as opposed to wage arrears or holiday pay), and that's the first time this has ever happened. We were instructed to challenge it to the Employment Court after having represented Mr Menzies before the Employment Relations Authority and said outcome. Concurrently while Mr Menzies sought documents exchanged between Catherine Stewart Barrister and the liquidator (who had by then been struck off), and the Court ordered that Mr Menzies pay over $33,000 to the Court account to be able to stay the order against him personally (Menzies v Corrigan [2025] NZEmpC 22), Mr Menzies and our team agreed that challenging this had then become a waste of time as it appeared that the Court could not understand his challenge, that is why it was discontinued. Before Mr Corrigan came to be self-represented, there were multiple references by Catherine Stewart Barrister's team to seek a jail sentence against Mr Menzies, including contained within Mr Corrigan's Statement of Defence (which is not the correct way to seek enforcement, that should be "Form 2" in the Employment Court - after a compliance order application is made to and determined by the Employment Relations Authority, which they did not do). Clearly they did not follow the correct procedure. Mr Menzies subsequently seeks judicial review as fresh evidence has come in, that is currently underway, and mainstream media have not been forthcoming about this development. We would have expected Catherine Stewart Barrister to avoid publicity as to not draw attention to her firm not having achieved any real success for Mr Corrigan and almost certainly losing money because of it given the company liquidation and deregistration etc. The documents below show a more complete picture of what has transpired and show that the judgment contains many errors.
Submissions for a Non-Party Application for costs against a Representative
Related articles
Browse all articles
Costs in the Employment Relations Authority
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) issued an updated practice note on costs. The daily tariff remains $4,500 for the first day and $3,500 for subsequent days, with adjustments up or down based on the circumstances.
Employer ERA Costs
Employers are often shocked that even when they win in the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), recovering actual legal spend from an employee is usually limited. The starting point is the ERA daily tariff and costs are a contribution, not an indemnity.
Unreasonable Employment Lawyer Costs
Employers beware of high employment lawyer fees when defending a personal grievance claim. Even if you win, recovering your actual legal spend in the ERA is usually limited by the daily tariff approach.
Employee ERA Costs Uplift
When an employee is successful in the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), the employee can seek a contribution to costs. Costs can be uplifted above the daily tariff where employer conduct increases time and expense.
Joyce v Ultimate Siteworks Limited - advocate and lawyer conduct
Joyce v Ultimate Siteworks Limited [2024] NZEmpC 204 - Advocate and Lawyer Conduct. Breaching our client's privacy, using a complaint as a bargaining chip, pressuring us to discontinue representation and a SLAPP.