ClickCease

Unless orders in NZ employment cases: meaning, deadlines, and consequences

Unless orders are a last-chance procedural device used when a party has failed to comply with directions. This guide explains what they require and what can happen if the deadline is missed.

The short answer

An unless order makes a specified consequence automatic if the party does not comply by the deadline—commonly strike-out of a claim or defence. Once made, it should be treated as a final compliance deadline rather than another ordinary timetable direction.


Unless orders and strikeout - Employment Court procedure that can end a case

An unless order is a procedural order that gives a party a final opportunity to comply. If they do not, their claim or defence can be struck out. Unless orders are most common in Court-level litigation (including Employment Court matters), where deadlines and compliance are critical.

The principles applying to a strikeout application can be summarised in this way:

  1. The facts pleaded in the statement of claim are assumed to be true.
  2. The proceeding must be clearly untenable before it can be struck out.
  3. The jurisdiction to strike out is used sparingly and only in clear cases.
  4. The jurisdiction to strike out is not displaced by the need to decide difficult questions of law.

Evidence considered in a strikeout application is also limited to what is undisputed. This is because the strikeout application is dealt with on the basis that the plaintiff is able to prove its pleaded facts. The Court of Appeal has acknowledged that there may be cases where a factual allegation is so demonstrably contrary to indisputable fact that the matter ought not to be allowed to proceed further.

If this is done by way of an Unless order then the statement of claim will be struck out if a party does not comply with the order. This often involves cases where there has been a history of failure to comply with Court orders for no good reason. An Unless order, if granted, gives a party one last opportunity to remedy their breach. They are "sparingly used" and only where there has been a "history of failure" to comply with orders.

Why this matters

  • Non-compliance can be fatal: missing court-ordered steps can lead to strikeout.
  • It is a leverage tool: unless orders often force the other side to actually do what they have been ordered to do.
  • Courts still act with restraint: strikeout is serious and the Court will consider fairness and proportionality.

Principles commonly applied

  • Proceedings should not be struck out unless it is clear the Court can do nothing about them.
  • When a strike out is being sought, everything should be done to ensure a trial is not denied.
  • The Court must be certain that a claim cannot succeed.
  • The Court should be slow to strike out a claim where there is some chance of establishing a cause of action. (If the facts could be better pleaded, the Court should allow amendment.)
If you are facing an unless order or are considering applying for one, get advice early. The timing and drafting of these applications matters.

Read our full article

Employment Court unless order case material Download File: Culturesafe unless order application

Leighton Associates website: Unless Order: Defendants want to know exactly what they're defending
0800 WIN KIWI

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

Related articles

Browse all articles
Based on: Employment Lawyers, Employment Court
Menzies v Corrigan [2026] NZEmpC 151 - late challenge refused, substantive issues remain unresolved

Mr Menzies sought to challenge an ERA compliance outcome arising from remedies originally ordered against a company that later entered liquidation. The background raised disputed accounting, disclosure, separate-legal-personality and recovery issues, but the challenge itself was filed substantially out of time.

Poor accounting in the ERA: Menzies v Corrigan and the liquidator disclosure problem with Catherine Stewart Barrister

This article examines how disputed accounting material in Menzies v Corrigan moved from a liquidator's reference to 'excessive drawings' into evidence used in proceedings seeking personal compliance orders against a company director. It also traces later disclosure issues involving material routed through Catherine Stewart Barrister's office.

Browse topics