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
David Turner v Big B Cartage Limited [2026] NZERA 581 - seven-minute disciplinary meeting led to unjustified dismissal

Big B Cartage dismissed truck driver David Turner for serious misconduct after a seven-minute meeting without identifying the allegations or disclosing the text message relied on. The ERA found the dismissal unjustified and awarded $9,750 compensation after a 25 percent contribution reduction.

Fatima Fahmy v Minimarc Childcare Centre Inc [2026] NZERA 585 - performance dismissal lacked objective assessment

Minimarc Childcare dismissed ECE teacher Fatima Fahmy for performance after its centre manager remained the principal evaluator despite known relationship and bullying complaints. The ERA found the assessment was not sufficiently objective and ordered reinstatement, lost wages and $25,000 compensation.

Juliet Hull v Sleaktek Limited and Robert Lawrence [2026] NZERA 579 - CEO wins dismissal and disadvantage claims

Sleaktek stopped paying chief executive Juliet Hull, pursued a redundancy process she said was predetermined and later raised serious-misconduct allegations that had not been fairly put to her. The case also concerned director Robert Lawrence's personal involvement.

Browse topics