This page summarises and displays the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination Hurikawa v Walton Mountain Ltd [2026] NZERA 8. The Authority found the employee was unjustifiably dismissed after a sudden verbal termination with no process and no reason given.
Case summary
- Citation: Hurikawa v Walton Mountain Ltd [2026] NZERA 8
- Determination date: 7 January 2026
- Member: Alyn Higgins
- Investigation meeting: 11 December 2025 (Tauranga)
- Applicant: Barlowe Hurikawa
- Respondent: Walton Mountain Limited
- Employment: 11 September 2023 to dismissal on 4 October 2023 (farm work)
- Respondent participation: No appearance and no evidence filed
- Remedies ordered: $6,656.00 gross lost wages + $15,000.00 compensation (costs reserved)
Full determination (PDF): https://determinations.era.govt.nz/assets/elawpdf/2026/2026-NZERA-8.pdf
What happened
Mr Hurikawa was dismissed suddenly on 4 October 2023. On his evidence, he was told he was "finished" and was not given a reason, a warning, or any opportunity to respond. The Authority recorded that Mr Hurikawa had also requested a written employment agreement but never received one.
Why the ERA found the dismissal unjustified
- No substantive reason was proved: The employer did not provide evidence of any conduct or performance issue that could justify dismissal.
- No fair process: There was no investigation, no raising of concerns, no chance to respond, and no genuine consideration of any explanation.
- Good faith and s 103A standards not met: The Authority applied the statutory test for justification and found the minimum standards were not satisfied.
- Non-participation harmed the respondent: The matter proceeded by formal proof because the respondent did not attend or file a reply.
Orders made
- $6,656.00 gross lost wages (compensation for wages lost) - payable within 28 days
- $15,000.00 compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings - payable within 28 days
Penalties and costs
- Penalty for no written employment agreement: The Authority recorded the breach could attract a penalty, but a penalty could not be ordered because the penalty action was out of time.
- Costs: Costs were reserved. The parties were encouraged to resolve costs, or the applicant could file a costs memorandum within 28 days (with a reply due 14 days after service).
Practical lessons for employers
- Do not dismiss by ambush. If a dismissal is being considered, investigate, put concerns, give a real chance to respond, and document the decision-making.
- Put employment agreements in writing. This is a statutory requirement and missing documents undermine credibility and increase penalty risk.
- Engage early. Respond to MBIE mediation, file a Statement in Reply, and attend the investigation meeting. Silence is rarely neutral.
- Defend the case. Not turning up, not filing a reply, and not producing records usually turns a defendable case into an undefendable one.
Read the full determination
This is a public document hosted on the ERA determinations database. If the embedded document does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.
This page summarises and displays the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) determination Hurikawa v Walton Mountain Ltd [2026] NZERA 8. The Authority found the employee was unjustifiably dismissed after a sudden verbal termination with no process and no reason given.
Case summary
- Citation: Hurikawa v Walton Mountain Ltd [2026] NZERA 8
- Determination date: 7 January 2026
- Member: Alyn Higgins
- Investigation meeting: 11 December 2025 (Tauranga)
- Applicant: Barlowe Hurikawa
- Respondent: Walton Mountain Limited
- Employment: 11 September 2023 to dismissal on 4 October 2023 (farm work)
- Respondent participation: No appearance and no evidence filed
- Remedies ordered: $6,656.00 gross lost wages + $15,000.00 compensation (costs reserved)
Full determination (PDF): https://determinations.era.govt.nz/assets/elawpdf/2026/2026-NZERA-8.pdf
What happened
Mr Hurikawa was dismissed suddenly on 4 October 2023. On his evidence, he was told he was "finished" and was not given a reason, a warning, or any opportunity to respond. The Authority recorded that Mr Hurikawa had also requested a written employment agreement but never received one.
Why the ERA found the dismissal unjustified
- No substantive reason was proved: The employer did not provide evidence of any conduct or performance issue that could justify dismissal.
- No fair process: There was no investigation, no raising of concerns, no chance to respond, and no genuine consideration of any explanation.
- Good faith and s 103A standards not met: The Authority applied the statutory test for justification and found the minimum standards were not satisfied.
- Non-participation harmed the respondent: The matter proceeded by formal proof because the respondent did not attend or file a reply.
Orders made
- $6,656.00 gross lost wages (compensation for wages lost) - payable within 28 days
- $15,000.00 compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings - payable within 28 days
Penalties and costs
- Penalty for no written employment agreement: The Authority recorded the breach could attract a penalty, but a penalty could not be ordered because the penalty action was out of time.
- Costs: Costs were reserved. The parties were encouraged to resolve costs, or the applicant could file a costs memorandum within 28 days (with a reply due 14 days after service).
Practical lessons for employers
- Do not dismiss by ambush. If a dismissal is being considered, investigate, put concerns, give a real chance to respond, and document the decision-making.
- Put employment agreements in writing. This is a statutory requirement and missing documents undermine credibility and increase penalty risk.
- Engage early. Respond to MBIE mediation, file a Statement in Reply, and attend the investigation meeting. Silence is rarely neutral.
- Defend the case. Not turning up, not filing a reply, and not producing records usually turns a defendable case into an undefendable one.
Read the full determination
This is a public document hosted on the ERA determinations database. If the embedded document does not load on your device, use the button below to open it in a new tab.
![Thomas Patrick Kenna v Anztec Limited [2026] NZERA 120 - redundancy found genuine but consultation defective; unjustified disadvantage; $15,000 compensation](/Images/site/EmploymentAdvocatesAucklandCard.jpg)