ClickCease

Paul Adams v EverEdge Global Limited [2026] NZERA 509 - employer stopped paying founder to force resignation

EverEdge Global Limited stopped paying founder and CEO Paul Adams while he continued working from Amsterdam, ignored his repeated requests for payment, and advanced multiple inconsistent explanations later. The ERA found EverEdge deliberately withheld salary to pressure him to resign, amounting to unjustified constructive dismissal. Awards totalled $267,640.69, including salary arrears, six months' lost remuneration, KiwiSaver, $30,000 compensation and a $7,500 good-faith penalty.


Paul Adams v EverEdge Global Limited [2026] NZERA 509

EverEdge Global Limited stopped paying founder and CEO Paul Adams while he continued working from Amsterdam. It ignored repeated demands for payment, gave no contemporaneous explanation, and later advanced several inconsistent reasons. The Employment Relations Authority found that EverEdge deliberately withheld salary to pressure Mr Adams to resign. That was an unjustified constructive dismissal, resulting in orders totalling $267,640.69.

Key point: an employer cannot silently stop paying salary to shortcut an employment process or obtain leverage in a wider commercial dispute. If it has concerns about location, performance or conduct, it must raise and investigate them—not use complete non-payment to engineer a resignation.

At a glance

  • Citation: [2026] NZERA 509
  • Authority member: Nicola Craig
  • Determination date: 29 July 2026
  • Applicant: Paul Adams
  • Respondent: EverEdge Global Limited
  • Role: founder and chief executive
  • Salary: $325,000 per year
  • Outcome: unjustified constructive dismissal
  • Compensation: $30,000
  • Contribution: no reduction
  • Total ordered: $267,640.69
  • Costs: reserved

Founder, director, shareholder and employee

Mr Adams founded EverEdge in 2013 and remained its CEO. He was also a director and held shares through a family trust. A 2023 share sale to a Singaporean company controlled by Max Goh did not proceed smoothly and generated wider disputes about the parties' commercial obligations.

Mr Adams moved with his family to Amsterdam intending to continue as CEO and develop EverEdge's European business. Remote work was not new to EverEdge, which operated internationally. The Authority found substantial evidence that the company and the incoming interests knew of and generally accepted the move.

Director resignation did not end employment

Mr Adams resigned as a director on 14 March 2024 but expressly said he remained CEO on his existing employment terms. His salary was paid up to 15 March and was ordinarily paid fortnightly in arrears. EverEdge then failed to pay on 29 March, 12 April and 26 April.

Mr Adams repeatedly contacted the board and Mr Goh, pointed out the contractual and statutory breaches, and demanded payment. He said he continued working and produced calendar and email evidence supporting ongoing CEO activity from Amsterdam. EverEdge gave no substantive answer while his employment continued.

Resignation after three missed paydays

On 1 May 2024 Mr Adams resigned, stating that EverEdge's complete failure to pay him despite repeated warnings was a fundamental breach that caused his resignation. The Authority readily accepted that an employer is contractually required to pay salary and must pay the entire amount due under the Wages Protection Act 1983.

Even if EverEdge had concerns about Mr Adams moving overseas or the amount of work he was doing, it was required to communicate, investigate and address those concerns fairly. It had no basis simply to stop all salary in the meantime. Three consecutive missed paydays were a sufficiently serious breach that resignation was reasonably foreseeable.

A deliberate attempt to coerce resignation

The Authority also upheld the alternative constructive-dismissal basis: a deliberate course of conduct intended to force Mr Adams out. Evidence indicated Mr Goh was angry after Mr Adams resigned as a director and had threatened to fire him as CEO. Another director wrote that he had not agreed to withhold payments without a formal settlement or conclusion.

EverEdge supplied several later explanations: that Mr Adams had already resigned, that senior staff were not being paid, that Amsterdam was unauthorised, that he was not working, and that he was “contract staff” paid day-to-day. The inconsistent explanations and lack of contemporaneous documents undermined the defence. The most likely conclusion was that pay was stopped to pressure Mr Adams in the share-sale and settlement disputes and to obtain his resignation without following an employment process.

Unjustified constructive dismissal

Both asserted forms of constructive dismissal were established. The non-payment was a fundamental breach that caused a reasonably foreseeable resignation, and EverEdge also adopted a deliberate course of conduct calculated to destroy the employment relationship. No fair and reasonable employer could completely stop salary without raising and investigating its concerns or deliberately use non-payment to coerce resignation.

Six months' lost remuneration

Mr Adams sought remuneration through March 2026, but the Authority adopted a counterfactual period from 1 May to 1 November 2024. His overseas location, lack of local networks and unfamiliar labour market made obtaining comparable employment difficult, and he made persistent efforts to find work. Against that was existing tension within EverEdge and uncertainty over how long his CEO position would have continued.

The Authority awarded $182,812.55 gross lost remuneration and $5,484.38 employer KiwiSaver contributions for the six-month period. It separately awarded unpaid salary of $40,625.01 gross and $1,218.75 employer KiwiSaver for 16 March to 1 May.

Compensation, contribution and penalty

Being forced from the company he founded after investing years of work, reputation and emotional energy was deeply distressing. Mr Adams had no opportunity to say goodbye to staff, experienced repeated job-search rejection and suffered reputational impact as a senior public-facing employee. Compensation was fixed at $30,000.

EverEdge sought a 100 percent contribution reduction based mainly on a February 2024 employment agreement connected with the Amsterdam move. The Authority found the then directors knew of and agreed to that agreement, the document was needed for immigration purposes, and it did not cause the later decision to stop pay. No contribution reduction was made.

A $7,500 penalty was imposed for the sustained and intentional failure to communicate actively and constructively. It was directed entirely to Mr Adams. Separate penalties for the same non-payment conduct were declined because that conduct already formed the core of the successful grievance.

Orders made

  • Salary arrears: $40,625.01 gross.
  • KiwiSaver on arrears: $1,218.75.
  • Lost remuneration: $182,812.55 gross.
  • KiwiSaver on lost remuneration: $5,484.38.
  • Compensation: $30,000.
  • Good-faith penalty: $7,500 payable to Mr Adams.
  • Total: $267,640.69.
  • Payment timeframe: 28 days.
  • Costs: reserved.

Why this case matters

Commercial, directorship and shareholder disputes do not suspend employment law. A person may be a founder, director and shareholder while also remaining an employee entitled to salary and a fair process. Stopping pay to obtain negotiating leverage or provoke resignation is a particularly direct route to constructive-dismissal liability.

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
Mandeep Singh v PR Kahlon Limited and Satpal Singh [2026] NZERA 521 - performance dismissal failed because employee was not fairly heard

PR Kahlon Limited had genuine and well-documented concerns about delivery driver Mandeep Singh's performance, but knew English was a significant barrier and still communicated critical performance and disciplinary information in English rather than Punjabi. The ERA found he did not receive a clear and reasonable opportunity to respond, making his dismissal and suspension unjustified. After a 25 percent contribution reduction, PR Kahlon was ordered to pay $934.29 suspension wages, $10,121.48 lost remuneration, $13,500 compensation and the filing fee.

KCY v XSH [2026] NZERA 516 - bullying complaint failures, forced transfer and dismissal over promotional gifts

In an anonymised retail case, the ERA found that XSH unjustifiably disadvantaged KCY by failing to follow up her bullying complaint, placing her on paid special leave without proper consultation, and directing an immediate store transfer as a fait accompli. Her summary dismissal over expired promotional gifts and a back-office passcode was also unjustified because relevant evidence of common store practice and staff deception was not properly investigated. Compensation totalled $40,000 after contribution reductions, with further lost-remuneration and annual-leave orders.

Sione Afimeimounga v NPD Limited [2026] NZERA 506 - tanker driver constructively and unjustifiably dismissed

NPD failed for years to meaningfully address tanker driver Sione Afimeimounga's workload, scheduling and health and safety concerns. After he resigned on extended notice, NPD dismissed him for serious misconduct based on selected messages from a provocative exchange with another driver. The ERA found constructive dismissal, unjustified summary dismissal and unjustified suspension. NPD was ordered to pay $13,608 gross lost wages, $22,500 compensation after 10 percent contribution, and a $4,000 records penalty.

Askkan Vakilipour Takaloo v Kaur Queens Trading Limited [2026] NZERA 507 - taxi driver was an employee and constructively dismissed

Although the written agreement called Mr Takaloo an independent contractor, the ERA found that the real nature of his relationship with Kaur Queens Trading Limited was employment. Withholding his final wages, verbal abuse, aggressive conduct and cancelling his access amounted to unjustified constructive dismissal. The company was ordered to pay $2,045 wages, $286.04 holiday pay, $12,038 lost remuneration and $7,500 compensation.

Carol Chesmar v Rooney Earthmoving Limited [2026] NZERA 502 - redundancy consultation was more apparent than real

Carol Chesmar had worked for Rooney Earthmoving Limited for more than nine years when her labourer position was disestablished. The ERA accepted that the redundancy was not a sham and that Rooney Earthmoving had genuine work and financial concerns. However, it withheld relevant financial and operational information, failed to consult over the end of Mrs Chesmar's Taiko landfill deployment, had effectively decided by the start of consultation that her role would go, and gave her no meaningful opportunity to influence the outcome. The dismissal was unjustified. Rooney Earthmoving was ordered to pay $14,471.60 gross lost remuneration and $25,000 compensation.

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...

Browse topics