The Estate of Samuel Keast v Playground Centre Limited [2026] NZERA 136

This is a preliminary Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination. It does not decide the substantive merits of the estate's underlying allegations. Instead, it addresses threshold questions: whether a personal grievance existed before death, who the employer was at the relevant time, and whether the ERA had jurisdiction against the named NZ respondent. The full determination is embedded at the end of this page.

What the application was trying to do

The applicant was the estate of Mr Samuel Keast. The estate sought to bring a personal grievance in the ERA after Mr Keast died in Australia, including a claim framed as constructive dismissal. The respondent (Playground Centre Limited, a NZ company) opposed the claim and said the ERA could not determine it against that respondent.

Non-publication order

The determination records a consent non-publication order protecting the names of certain non-party employees (former NZ-based colleagues who remain employed by the respondent). This summary is written to comply with that order and does not identify any protected individuals.

The employer identity and jurisdiction problem

A central issue was which entity employed Mr Keast at the time relevant to the estate's allegations. The Authority accepted evidence that the NZ employment ended before the Australian period, and that a separate related Australian entity employed Mr Keast in Australia. On that footing, claims about Australian employment terms and Australian workplace matters could not properly be advanced in the ERA against the NZ respondent.

Could the estate raise a new personal grievance after death?

The estate's primary argument was that the fact of Mr Keast's death was enough, by itself, to amount to a personal grievance that the estate could then pursue. The Authority rejected that approach. In summary, a personal grievance must come into existence while the employee is alive and must be raised (or otherwise made sufficiently clear) in a way the employer can respond to. The Authority distinguished the Matheson line of authority because, on the facts in this case, there was no comparable grievance communication to the respondent before death.

The estate also pointed to general workplace dissatisfaction (including concerns about colleagues, workload, and pay). The Authority treated that as insufficient to amount to a personal grievance being raised. There was no evidence that the respondent was put on notice of a specific grievance that could then be pursued by the estate as an existing claim.

The constructive dismissal argument

The estate advanced a constructive dismissal argument based on a voicemail message from a senior employee in November 2023. The Authority rejected that framing. The communication was treated as part of ordinary contact and did not amount to conduct that ended employment or forced resignation. On the threshold question being addressed in this preliminary decision, the constructive dismissal allegation did not provide a basis to proceed against the NZ respondent.

Other employment allegations

The estate also raised various concerns about terms and conditions while Mr Keast was in Australia (for example, entitlements, resourcing, and administrative expectations). The Authority treated those as matters relating to the Australian employment relationship and not something that could be pursued in the ERA against the NZ respondent in this proceeding.

Orders and next steps

The Authority held the estate had not established that a personal grievance existed and was raised while Mr Keast was alive, and it held the NZ respondent was not the relevant employer during the Australian period. The result was that the estate's claims could not be progressed in the ERA against Playground Centre Limited. Costs were reserved.

Practical takeaways

• An estate can continue a personal grievance that already exists, but the grievance must have arisen while the employee was alive and the employer must have been put on notice of it.
• Where a related overseas entity is the true employer, jurisdiction can be a threshold barrier to ERA claims against a NZ company.
• Matheson does not mean a death, by itself, automatically creates a personal grievance. The facts and communications matter.
• Constructive dismissal requires a causal link: employer conduct must effectively end employment or leave the employee with no real choice but to resign.
• Non-publication orders should be treated strictly. Do not publish protected identities.

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.