ClickCease

STL Linehaul Ltd v Waters [2022] NZEmpC 114 - employer challenge unsuccessful

STL Linehaul challenged the ERA outcome obtained by Leo Waters. The Employment Court did not reverse the employee's success and ordered payment of the compensation and costs amounts at issue.


STL Linehaul Ltd v Waters [2022] NZEmpC 114 - employer challenge unsuccessful

STL Linehaul challenged Authority determinations in which Leo Waters had succeeded. The Employment Court did not overturn the result in the employer's favour. The employee's compensation and the relevant costs award remained payable.

Relationship to the ERA decision: ERA outcome upheld. This is a later Employment Court challenge connected with an AndersonLaw ERA case, but it is not an example of the ERA employee win being overturned.

At a glance

  • Citation: [2022] NZEmpC 114
  • Judge: Judge J C Holden
  • Judgment date: 28 June 2022
  • Underlying ERA proceedings: Waters v STL Linehaul Ltd, including [2021] NZERA 304
  • Employment Court outcome: employer challenge unsuccessful
  • Compensation: $17,000 remained payable
  • Costs / filing fee: $9,071.56 remained payable

The Authority proceedings

Mr Waters had succeeded in the Authority against STL Linehaul. The dispute generated both substantive and costs issues before moving to the Employment Court.

The Employment Court challenge

STL Linehaul challenged the Authority result. The Court did not disturb the employee's entitlement to the compensation at issue and required the employer to meet the relevant costs and filing-fee liability.

What changed from the ERA

The important point for subsequent-history labelling is that the employee's ERA success was not reversed. A reader of the underlying Authority case does not need a warning that its core outcome was later overturned by [2022] NZEmpC 114.

Why this case matters

Publishing later challenge outcomes is still useful even when the Authority was upheld. It lets readers see that the determination was tested in the Employment Court and survived that challenge.

If you are considering raising a Personal Grievance (PG), the applicable time limit can be critical.

Read the full Employment Court judgment

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 Court judgment and related public material.

0800 WIN KIWI

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

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Employment Court Cases
Faitala and Vea v Pacific Island Business Development Trust [2026] NZEmpC 53 - disadvantage findings and remedies varied

The Employment Court left the ERA's unjustified redundancy dismissal findings undisturbed but held the Authority erred by rejecting separate unjustified disadvantage grievances. It also substantially reassessed lost remuneration and compensation, awarding six months' lost wages to Mr Faitala, 12 months to Mrs Vea, and compensation of $30,000 and $45,000 respectively.

Browse topics