YAQUB v NEILSONS LAWYERS LIMITED [2025] NZERA 139

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

Story in plain English

A penalty determination was made.

In summary, He says he had no choice but to resign due to an unfair and unjustified investigation the employer undertook into alleged conduct of his and that his resignation was in law an unjustifiable constructive dismissal. After that, Prior to the investigation and his resignation, he says his suspension on 28 April 2022 and its continuation was unfair and unreasonable and amounts to an unjustified disadvantage. Later, Compensation for unjustified dismissal of $40,000 under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act; iv. The determination records that Background 22 April - 27 April - the employer undertakes a preliminary investigation into Mr Yaqub's conduct [16] At 9.46pm on Wednesday 27 April 2022 Mr Meys emailed Mr Yaqub a letter subject line (quoted wording omitted) copying in Mr Bowler, Ms Jamnadas and Mr Palmer (the directors). The Authority notes that The letter included advice to Mr Yaqub that he was suspended on pay, described a number of allegations concerning his conduct which could amount to serious misconduct and advised he was to attend a meeting with the directors on Friday 29 April. Ultimately, the employer's decision and reason to place Mr Yaqub on paid leave is set out at [8] of the letter: Due to the nature of the allegations and the potential effect on Neilsons we are placing you on paid leave while the investigation takes place. In the end, At the meeting Mr Yaqub was handed a copy of the letter emailed to him the previous evening.

Key case markers

• This determination comes from the Auckland registry.
• The parties are YAQUB (employee) and NEILSONS LAWYERS LIMITED (employer).
• Hearing date noted: 22 - 25 August and 15 September 2023 (5 days).
• Authority member: Marija Urlich.

Key events described

• He says he had no choice but to resign due to an unfair and unjustified investigation the employer undertook into alleged conduct of his and that his resignation was in law an unjustifiable constructive dismissal.
• Prior to the investigation and his resignation, he says his suspension on 28 April 2022 and its continuation was unfair and unreasonable and amounts to an unjustified disadvantage.
• Compensation for unjustified dismissal of $40,000 under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act; iv.
• Background 22 April - 27 April - the employer undertakes a preliminary investigation into Mr Yaqub's conduct [16] At 9.46pm on Wednesday 27 April 2022 Mr Meys emailed Mr Yaqub a letter subject line (quoted wording omitted) copying in Mr Bowler, Ms Jamnadas and Mr Palmer (the directors).
• The letter included advice to Mr Yaqub that he was suspended on pay, described a number of allegations concerning his conduct which could amount to serious misconduct and advised he was to attend a meeting with the directors on Friday 29 April.
• the employer's decision and reason to place Mr Yaqub on paid leave is set out at [8] of the letter: Due to the nature of the allegations and the potential effect on Neilsons we are placing you on paid leave while the investigation takes place.
• At the meeting Mr Yaqub was handed a copy of the letter emailed to him the previous evening.
• In the email he also stated he was disappointed, distressed and humiliated by how he had been treated on 28 April including that staff had assumed he had been dismissed because files had been removed from his office.
• The letter raised a concern Mr Yaqub was not cooperating with the investigation by (quoted wording omitted).
• On 28 April 2022, I was suspended without prior notice or consultation.
• When [Mr Meys and Mr Bowler] were asked about this point in the investigatory meeting on 9 June 2022, [Mr Bowler] said there were no (quoted wording omitted) and it was a (quoted wording omitted).
• A suspension is a temporary status determined by the employer where allegations of misconduct have been made, are being investigated, but have not been established or dismissed.

Decision markers

• Mr Yaqub has established a personal grievance in relation to the ongoing suspension. (iii) Was Mr Yaqub unjustifiably constructively dismissed?
• Remedies [109] Mr Yaqub has established a personal grievance for unjustified disadvantage and unjustified constructive dismissal.

Orders and payments mentioned

• Compensation: $40,000
• Lost wages: 3 months

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

• Constructive dismissal turns on whether the employer's conduct forced resignation in substance.
• Unjustified disadvantage claims require both unjustified conduct and actual disadvantage.
• 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.