ClickCease

Mr Ryder's employment with Leopard Lime ended after an exchange in early November 2022 in which the employer maintained that he had not been dismissed. The case turned on what the communications objectively meant and whether any fair dismissal process had occurred.

The short answer

The ERA held Mr Ryder had in fact been dismissed and that the employer failed the s 103A justification requirements. The dismissal was unjustified and the Authority awarded $20,000 compensation; costs were reserved.


RYDER v LEOPARD LIME LIMITED [2025] NZERA 266

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

At a glance

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 266
  • Registry: Wellington
  • Parties: RYDER v LEOPARD LIME LIMITED
  • Authority member: Shane Kinley
  • Hearing date: 18 March 2025
  • Determination date: 13 May 2025
  • 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, The Authority found the employer has failed to demonstrate it met the requirements under s 103A for employer when dismissing an employee. After that, The Authority found those requirements were not met and Mr Ryder was unjustifiably dismissed by the employer for this reason. Later, Mr Ryder was unjustifiably dismissed [22] For the above reasons, The Authority found Mr Ryder was unjustifiably dismissed by the employer on 2 November 2022, with his dismissal confirmed by Mr Eade's email of 3 November 2022, notwithstanding Mr Eade's comments at the time he had not dismissed Mr Ryder.

Key case markers

  • This determination comes from the Wellington registry.
  • The parties are RYDER (employee) and LEOPARD LIME LIMITED (employer).
  • Hearing date noted: 18 March 2025.
  • Authority member: Shane Kinley.

Decision markers

  • The Authority found the employer has failed to demonstrate it met the requirements under s 103A for employer when dismissing an employee.
  • The Authority found those requirements were not met and Mr Ryder was unjustifiably dismissed by the employer for this reason.
  • Mr Ryder was unjustifiably dismissed [22] For the above reasons, The Authority found Mr Ryder was unjustifiably dismissed by the employer on 2 November 2022, with his dismissal confirmed by Mr Eade's email of 3 November 2022, notwithstanding Mr Eade's comments at the time he had not dismissed Mr Ryder.

Orders and payments mentioned

  • Compensation: $20,000
  • Costs: Costs reserved.

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

  • 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 cases, guides and topics.
Tip: press / to search

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Unfair Dismissal Cases
Shaun Graves v NZSL Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 669 - contractor became an employee before summary dismissal

Shaun Graves initially worked through his own contracting company, but later moved onto NZSL's PAYE payroll, worked regular hours under its direction and used its equipment. The ERA found he had become an employee from 23 September 2024 and was unjustifiably dismissed when simply told his services were no longer required.

Eric Paul Tillocksingh v Driver Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 663 - resign or be dismissed ultimatum was an unjustified dismissal

After a customer complaint, truck driver Eric Tillocksingh was called into meetings without advance written allegations or warning that dismissal was possible. The ERA preferred his evidence that he was told to resign or be dismissed, found the process fundamentally unfair, and awarded $15,000 compensation plus $17,448.75 lost remuneration.

Ross McCullum v RidgeAir Limited [2026] NZERA 658 - long-serving Chief Pilot was unjustifiably dismissed

After 15 years as RidgeAir's Chief Pilot, Ross McCullum had his work phone disconnected and laptop removed before a meeting at which he was told the business was closing. The ERA found the employer had dismissed him, rejected the later characterisation of his departure as voluntary, and awarded lost wages, compensation and substantial holiday-pay arrears.

Wenpeng Yu v Golden Rooster NZ Trading Ltd [2026] NZERA 699 - one week employee was dismissed, not an abandonment

Golden Rooster said chef Wenpeng Yu abandoned his job after only one week, but WeChat messages supported his evidence that the employer had dismissed him because it was unhappy with his productivity. The ERA found no fair process had been followed and awarded $7,500 compensation, $3,559.20 lost wages and annual holiday pay.

Xuefeng Yang v ERA Home Limited [2026] NZERA 695 - migrant worker was an employee despite employer denying relationship

ERA Home denied that Xuefeng Yang had ever become its employee, despite a signed employment agreement, an approved work visa and evidence that he worked at its construction site. The ERA found an employment relationship existed, upheld unjustified dismissal and disadvantage claims, awarded $23,000 compensation and $8,008.20 lost wages plus holiday pay, and imposed a $3,000 penalty on the company.

Herewini Dickson v Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited [2026] NZERA 693 - serious safety breach but dismissal and suspension unjustified

Ballance established that long-serving employee Herewini Dickson breached a safety SOP and that the conduct was capable of serious misconduct, but its process was still unfair. The ERA found both his suspension and dismissal unjustified because critical evidence was not disclosed, the HiPo classification was not fairly put to him and alternatives to dismissal were not adequately considered. Remedies were reduced 30 percent for contribution.

Browse topics