ClickCease

This costs determination followed Christopher Wyeth's partly successful employment case against Hansen Products. The dispute was whether costs should be reduced because he had rejected a $10,000 Calderbank settlement offer before the substantive determination.

The short answer

The ERA treated Wyeth as the successful party for costs and ordered Hansen Products to pay $3,500 plus the $71.55 filing fee. Rejecting the $10,000 Calderbank offer did not justify a reduction because the remedies he ultimately obtained exceeded that offer.


WYETH v HANSEN PRODUCTS (NZ) LIMITED [2025] NZERA 92

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

At a glance

  • Citation: [2025] NZERA 92
  • Registry: Auckland
  • Parties: WYETH v HANSEN PRODUCTS (NZ) LIMITED
  • Authority member: David Beck
  • Investigation meeting: 9 September 2024 (Auckland)
  • Determination date: 19 February 2025
  • Outcome: Costs determination.

Story in plain English

This is a costs determination following earlier steps in an employment relationship problem.

In summary, Mr Wyeth was therefore only partially successful in his claims; • Mr Wyeth turned down a settlement offer of $10,000.00 made on a Calderbank basis on 23 May 2024.

Key case markers

  • This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
  • The parties are WYETH (employee) and HANSEN PRODUCTS (NZ) LIMITED (employer).
  • Hearing date noted: .
  • Authority member: .

Key events described

  • Mr Wyeth was therefore only partially successful in his claims; • Mr Wyeth turned down a settlement offer of $10,000.00 made on a Calderbank basis on 23 May 2024.

Decision markers

(No decision markers were extracted automatically.)

Orders and payments mentioned

  • Costs: $3,500.00

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