ClickCease

ORMSBY v BLUELAGOON NZ LIMITED [2025] NZERA 44 - The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues. On 29 June 2020, Mr Ormsby says his employment was terminated via Messenger without notice because Mr Ferey could no longer afford to pay wages.


ORMSBY v BLUELAGOON NZ LIMITED [2025] NZERA 44

This page summarises and embeds an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. It is not legal advice.

At a glance

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 44
  • Registry: Wellington
  • Parties: ORMSBY v BLUELAGOON NZ LIMITED
  • Authority member: Sarah Kennedy-Martin
  • Hearing date: 13 December 2024
  • Outcome: The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

Story in plain English

The Authority ordered remedies and addressed unjustified dismissal issues.

In summary, On 29 June 2020, Mr Ormsby says his employment was terminated via Messenger without notice because Mr Ferey could no longer afford to pay wages. After that, The Authority found Mr Ormsby was dismissed when Mr Ferey sent the messages saying he could not afford to continue to pay him because that message amounts to a clear termination of employment at the initiative of the employer. Later, I consider it appropriate to make a global award of $20,000.00 under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act for both the unjustified disadvantage and dismissal.

Key case markers

  • This determination comes from the Wellington registry.
  • The parties are ORMSBY (employee) and BLUELAGOON NZ LIMITED (employer).
  • Hearing date noted: 13 December 2024.
  • Authority member: Sarah Kennedy-Martin.

Key events described

  • On 29 June 2020, Mr Ormsby says his employment was terminated via Messenger without notice because Mr Ferey could no longer afford to pay wages.
  • The Authority found Mr Ormsby was dismissed when Mr Ferey sent the messages saying he could not afford to continue to pay him because that message amounts to a clear termination of employment at the initiative of the employer.
  • I consider it appropriate to make a global award of $20,000.00 under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act for both the unjustified disadvantage and dismissal.

Decision markers

  • The Authority found Mr Ormsby was dismissed when Mr Ferey sent the messages saying he could not afford to continue to pay him because that message amounts to a clear termination of employment at the initiative of the employer.
  • The Authority found the dismissal was unjustified and awarded compensation and lost wages.
  • The Authority also found an unjustified disadvantage and made a global compensation award covering both claims.

Orders and payments mentioned

  • Compensation: $20,000.00 (global award for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings)
  • Lost wages: $7,000.00 gross
  • Wage and holiday arrears: $4,951.60 plus interest
  • KiwiSaver: Unpaid employer contributions ordered to be paid to the fund

Note: figures above are extracted from the orders section (or the final orders wording). Check the PDF for full context and any gross/net directions.

Practical takeaways

  • Unjustified disadvantage claims require both unjustified conduct and actual disadvantage.
  • Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.
If you have an active employment problem and deadlines, get advice early. If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the 90 day notification time limit can be critical.

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.

0800 WIN KIWI

Search
Search articles and guides.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases, Unjustified Disadvantage
Rachel Hankins v Huhtamaki Henderson Limited [2026] NZERA 379 - valid fixed term but unjustified early termination

Rachel Hankins was engaged as an accountant on a fixed term maternity-cover agreement due to end on 15 August 2025. The ERA found the fixed term complied with section 66 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, but Huhtamaki Henderson Limited prematurely ended the employment relationship by requiring the return of company property, cutting off IT access, and treating her engagement as concluded before the agreed end date. The Authority found unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage, ordering $11,500 compensation and four weeks' salary.

ZZP v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2026] NZERA 367 - medical incapacity dismissal unjustified because final concerns were not put to the employee

ZZP was dismissed by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue on medical grounds after a lengthy absence and a failed return-to-work attempt. The ERA accepted that IRD had given ZZP a reasonable opportunity to recover and had been entitled to treat the medical evidence cautiously. However, the dismissal was unjustified because the decision maker relied on several concerns in the final decision letter that had not been put to ZZP for comment. Reinstatement and lost wages were declined, but compensation was assessed at $25,000 and reduced by 25 percent for contribution, resulting in $18,750 payable.

Jeanette Go v Point Limited [2026] NZERA 369 - genuine redundancy but flawed consultation and undisclosed selection criteria

Jeanette Go was made redundant from her estimator role at Point Limited after a downturn in estimation work. Point accepted its redundancy process was flawed because it did not disclose the selection criteria and did not interview the other estimators. The ERA accepted there was a genuine business reason and that the outcome was unlikely to have changed, but found Ms Go was unjustifiably dismissed and disadvantaged by the flawed process. Point was ordered to pay $18,000 compensation and $5,769.23 gross lost wages. Penalties were declined and costs were reserved.

Browse topics