Hurikawa v Walton Mountain Ltd [2026] NZERA 8 - Unjustified dismissal and remedies

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 required 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

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.
• Remedies can be significant even for short employment. Compensation for hurt and lost wages can add up quickly.