ClickCease

Special Interest Cases


Special Interest Cases


Search
Search cases, guides and topics.
Tip: press / to search
Showing 1-4 of 4 articles in Special Interest Cases
VLN v Elizabeth Rose Dotcom, Kim Dotcom and Contractors Only Limited [2026] NZERA 508 - urgent removal to Employment Court

VLN brought claims about employment status and minimum employment standards arising from work at properties associated with Elizabeth and Kim Dotcom. With possible extradition affecting witness availability and enforcement, VLN sought urgent removal of the whole proceeding from the ERA to the Employment Court before the Authority investigation occurred.

Philip Moller v Cardinal Logistics Limited [2026] NZERA 318 - drug test refusal, unjustified dismissal, unjustified suspension

Philip Moller was dismissed by Cardinal Logistics after refusing a drug and alcohol test said to arise from a safety complaint. The case turned on whether Cardinal had genuine and reasonable grounds to require the test and whether it fairly verified the allegation before suspending and dismissing him.

Shania Mackey v Shearing NZ Limited [2026] NZERA 146 - employer withheld s 149 settlement payments after alleged confidentiality breach; compliance ordered; penalties adjourned

Shania Mackey and Shearing NZ settled a personal grievance at mediation under s 149, requiring compensation, payment of representative fees and a certificate of service. The employer later withheld those obligations after hearing that Mackey had allegedly breached confidentiality.

The Estate of Samuel Keast v Playground Centre Limited [2026] NZERA 136 - preliminary decision: estate could not raise a new personal grievance after death; Australian entity was employer at the time; ERA lacked jurisdiction

After Samuel Keast died while working in Melbourne, his estate sought to pursue employment claims, including constructive dismissal, against a New Zealand company. The preliminary issue was whether a personal grievance existed before his death, who employed him in Australia, and whether the ERA had jurisdiction over the named respondent.

Browse topics