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
Philip Powell v OH and N Contracting Limited and Bradley Mooney [2026] NZERA 481 - genuine redundancy reason but no consultation, notice-pay breach and director recovery

Philip Powell was employed by OH and N Contracting Limited as a site foreman in a logging operation. The ERA accepted there was some genuine business basis for redundancy because the logging work was nearing completion, the company had not secured other work, and the need for workers was reducing. But the dismissal was still unjustified because OH and N did not follow any real good-faith consultation process before ending Mr Powell's employment. The employer also wrongly used annual holiday pay instead of paying notice wages, failed to provide wage and time records when requested, and was ordered to pay compensation, lost wages, unpaid wages, penalties, and to allow limited personal recovery against the director if the company could not pay...

Conner Powell v OH and N Contracting Limited and Bradley Mooney [2026] NZERA 480 - genuine redundancy reason but no consultation, notice-pay breach and director recovery

Conner Powell was employed by OH and N Contracting Limited as a forestry worker from November 2022 until his employment ended on redundancy grounds in January 2025. The ERA accepted there was some genuine business basis for redundancy because the logging work was nearing completion, the company had not secured other work, and the need for workers was reducing. But the dismissal was still unjustified because OH and N did not follow a good-faith restructuring process before ending Mr Powell's employment. The employer also wrongly used annual holiday pay instead of notice wages, failed to provide the employment agreement and wage and time records when requested, and was ordered to pay compensation, lost wages, unpaid wages and penalties...

Jia Jia v TBS Trading Limited and Helen Han [2026] NZERA 478 - no employment agreement, late wages and radio-silent dismissal

Jia Jia worked for TBS Trading Limited as a retail sales assistant for about two and a half months. She was not given a written employment agreement, her wages were not always paid on time, and her employment ended after the employer stopped offering her full-time work and then stopped offering her work at all. The ERA found unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage. It ordered two months' lost wages, $12,500 compensation, penalties for failing to provide an employment agreement and late wage payment, costs and the filing fee. Helen Han was not found personally liable for dismissal remedies, but the ERA granted leave for Ms Jia to recover the penalties from Ms Han personally if TBS could not pay them...

Browse topics