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
Shaun Graves v NZSL Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 669 - contractor became an employee before summary dismissal

Shaun Graves initially worked through his own contracting company, but later moved onto NZSL's PAYE payroll, worked regular hours under its direction and used its equipment. The ERA found he had become an employee from 23 September 2024 and was unjustifiably dismissed when simply told his services were no longer required.

Eric Paul Tillocksingh v Driver Employment Limited [2026] NZERA 663 - resign or be dismissed ultimatum was an unjustified dismissal

After a customer complaint, truck driver Eric Tillocksingh was called into meetings without advance written allegations or warning that dismissal was possible. The ERA preferred his evidence that he was told to resign or be dismissed, found the process fundamentally unfair, and awarded $15,000 compensation plus $17,448.75 lost remuneration.

Ross McCullum v RidgeAir Limited [2026] NZERA 658 - long-serving Chief Pilot was unjustifiably dismissed

After 15 years as RidgeAir's Chief Pilot, Ross McCullum had his work phone disconnected and laptop removed before a meeting at which he was told the business was closing. The ERA found the employer had dismissed him, rejected the later characterisation of his departure as voluntary, and awarded lost wages, compensation and substantial holiday-pay arrears.

Wenpeng Yu v Golden Rooster NZ Trading Ltd [2026] NZERA 699 - one week employee was dismissed, not an abandonment

Golden Rooster said chef Wenpeng Yu abandoned his job after only one week, but WeChat messages supported his evidence that the employer had dismissed him because it was unhappy with his productivity. The ERA found no fair process had been followed and awarded $7,500 compensation, $3,559.20 lost wages and annual holiday pay.

Xuefeng Yang v ERA Home Limited [2026] NZERA 695 - migrant worker was an employee despite employer denying relationship

ERA Home denied that Xuefeng Yang had ever become its employee, despite a signed employment agreement, an approved work visa and evidence that he worked at its construction site. The ERA found an employment relationship existed, upheld unjustified dismissal and disadvantage claims, awarded $23,000 compensation and $8,008.20 lost wages plus holiday pay, and imposed a $3,000 penalty on the company.

Herewini Dickson v Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited [2026] NZERA 693 - serious safety breach but dismissal and suspension unjustified

Ballance established that long-serving employee Herewini Dickson breached a safety SOP and that the conduct was capable of serious misconduct, but its process was still unfair. The ERA found both his suspension and dismissal unjustified because critical evidence was not disclosed, the HiPo classification was not fairly put to him and alternatives to dismissal were not adequately considered. Remedies were reduced 30 percent for contribution.

Browse topics