SUTTER v LIVING WATERS MEDICAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED [2025] NZERA 485

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

Story in plain English

A costs determination was made.

In summary, A year into her employment, Living Waters invited Ms Sutter to a catch up meeting and told her that her Practice Nurse role was being made redundant. After that, Ms Sutter says her dismissal on the basis of redundancy was not genuine, in that it lacked substantive justification and was procedurally deficient. Later, This determination resolves the issue of whether Ms Sutter was unjustifiably dismissed on the basis of a redundancy and if so, whether she should be paid compensation and lost earnings. The determination records that The matter was set down for an investigation meeting in Whanganui on 6 and 7 May 2025 and timetabling directions were made for the exchange of statements and information. The Authority notes that On 28 April 2025, a week before the investigation meeting, Living Waters lodged a statement of problem naming Ms Sutter as the employer. Ultimately, The parties were advised the investigation meeting would proceed on 6 May 2025 at 9:30 am as scheduled. In the end, The Authority concluded on the evidence available to the Authority, that the decision to make Ms Sutter's role redundant was not substantively justified.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Wellington registry.
• The parties are SUTTER (employee) and LIVING WATERS MEDICAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 6 May 2025.
• Authority member: Natasha Szeto.

Key events described

• A year into her employment, Living Waters invited Ms Sutter to a catch up meeting and told her that her Practice Nurse role was being made redundant.
• Ms Sutter says her dismissal on the basis of redundancy was not genuine, in that it lacked substantive justification and was procedurally deficient.
• This determination resolves the issue of whether Ms Sutter was unjustifiably dismissed on the basis of a redundancy and if so, whether she should be paid compensation and lost earnings.
• The matter was set down for an investigation meeting in Whanganui on 6 and 7 May 2025 and timetabling directions were made for the exchange of statements and information.
• On 28 April 2025, a week before the investigation meeting, Living Waters lodged a statement of problem naming Ms Sutter as the employer.
• The parties were advised the investigation meeting would proceed on 6 May 2025 at 9:30 am as scheduled.
• The Authority concluded on the evidence available to the Authority, that the decision to make Ms Sutter's role redundant was not substantively justified.
• Analysis Looking objectively at the process Living Waters followed, The Authority concluded there were significant procedural deficiencies which meant that Ms Sutter's redundancy was not procedurally fair for the reasons that follow.
• The Authority concluded Living Waters had already made the decision to make Ms Sutter redundant and the purpose of the meeting was to tell her that.
• The redundancy letter refers to a service review but The Authority accepted Ms Sutter's evidence that she did not know anything about a service review prior to the 2 May meeting.
• Conclusion Looking objectively at the process Living Waters followed, The Authority concluded Ms Sutter's redundancy was not procedurally fair.
• The decision to make Ms Sutter redundant was predetermined before the 2 May meeting and made completely without consultation.

Decision markers

• The Authority concluded on the evidence available to the Authority, that the decision to make Ms Sutter's role redundant was not substantively justified.
• Analysis Looking objectively at the process Living Waters followed, The Authority concluded there were significant procedural deficiencies which meant that Ms Sutter's redundancy was not procedurally fair for the reasons that follow.
• The Authority concluded Living Waters had already made the decision to make Ms Sutter redundant and the purpose of the meeting was to tell her that.
• Conclusion Looking objectively at the process Living Waters followed, The Authority concluded Ms Sutter's redundancy was not procedurally fair.
• The Authority found the redundancy was not substantively justified and the process was procedurally unfair.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $23,000.00
• Lost wages: $14,151.46 gross
• 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

• Redundancy determinations usually turn on genuineness and consultation quality.
• Dismissal justification is assessed through s 103A: what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances.

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.