Joyce v Ultimate Siteworks Limited [2024] NZEmpC 204 - representatives, employment advocate and employment lawyer conduct
Joyce v Ultimate Siteworks Limited [2024] NZEmpC 204 - Advocate and Lawyer Conduct. Breaching our client's privacy, using a complaint as a bargaining chip, pressuring us to discontinue representation and a SLAPP.
Joyce v Ultimate Siteworks Limited [2024] NZEmpC 204
Firstly, our client had success in not being liable to the $24,748 that was sought by Mr Fleming on behalf of his client. Mr Joyce was only ordered to pay $12,614.83. Secondly, Mr Fleming was wrong in trying to establish that alleged conduct of the writer increased costs. Thirdly "Mr Anderson also says Mr Fleming and Ultimate Siteworks's previous representative are not blameless either, he says they talked over him and shouted at him."... There is more: (attached affidavit and submissions to the Court below):
- Mr Gelb improperly obtained without permission from Mr Joyce's subsequent employer Mr Joyce's personal employee file. Mr Gelb then used this information to attempt to frame Mr Joyce as being a "liar".
- Mr Gelb and Mr Fleming used a complaint that Mr Gelb filed about Mr Anderson as a bargaining chip to attempt to pressure Mr Anderson and Mr Joyce to withdraw Mr Joyce's case from the Employment Court.
- Mr Fleming also expected that Mr Anderson should have recused himself or been taken off the case during which time there were timetabled directions for submissions etc for the interlocutory matters for strikeout and disclosure against Mr Joyce. That was entirely without any thought to Mr Joyce and the integrity of the judicial process.
- Mr Fleming talks about the writer allegedly attacking Ultimate Siteworks Limited, in fact, Mr Fleming attacked Mr Joyce when bringing the claim for strikeout and fines at the very late stages that it was brought. This was Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, a SLAPP. That was an unsuccessful action taken against Mr Joyce.
Submissions for Mr Joyce
How Employment Law Institute of New Zealand ELINZ deals with complaints
- These documents are extracts from the above annexures to Affidavit of Lawrence Anderson.
- Mr Anderson had a client (at that time contracted through No Win No Fee Kiwi Limited) following that client having formerly used services of an ELINZ Member.
- Said ELINZ Member entirely refused to provide the client's file to the client and on our request refused to provide it to us.
- Mr Anderson sought intervention through ELINZ and spoke to Anthony Drake who during the phone call promised to take action and provide the file.
- The file was never provided.
- ELINZ then officially responded saying that the ELINZ Member concerned's company was not an ELINZ Member, so therefore nothing will be done.
- This was challenged by Mr Anderson.
- ELINZ and Anthony Drake's response was to demand that we cease and desist and accused us of harassment in attempting to obtain the client's file.
- What ELINZ is saying is that because its ELINZ Member is a Member in a personal capacity, that it has no jurisdiction over that ELINZ Member's company or organization that that ELINZ Member has their client contract with. So no accountability whatsoever to the ELINZ Member as ELINZ will let them hide behind their company that their current or former client has the employment advocacy client contract with.
- It followed that the ELINZ Member and ELINZ never provided us with our client's file.
Related articles
Browse all articles![Menzies v Corrigan [2025] NZEmpC 186 - employment advocate and employment lawyer conduct](/Images/EmploymentAdvocatesAuckland.jpg)
Menzies v Corrigan [2025] NZEmpC 186 - employment advocate and employment lawyer conduct
Mr Menzies lost company limited liability protection over grievance remedies in the ERA. We appealed to the Employment Court, but discontinued when it became futile. Catherine Stewart Barrister team repeatedly made veiled threats to seek a jail sentence against Mr Menzies in event of non-payment. Fresh evidence has led to a judicial review now underway.
Employment lawyer fees: avoiding unreasonable costs when defending a personal grievance
Employers beware of high employment lawyer fees when defending a personal grievance claim. Even if you win, recovering your actual legal spend in the ERA is usually limited by the daily tariff approach.
Costs in the Employment Relations Authority: practice note, daily tariff, and uplifts explained
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) issued an updated practice note on costs. The daily tariff remains $4,500 for the first day and $3,500 for subsequent days, with adjustments up or down based on the circumstances.
Employee ERA costs uplift: when the Authority increases costs awards
When an employee is successful in the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), the employee can seek a contribution to costs. Costs can be uplifted above the daily tariff where employer conduct increases time and expense.
Employer ERA costs: when an employer can claim costs after winning
Employers are often shocked that even when they win in the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), recovering actual legal spend from an employee is usually limited. The starting point is the ERA daily tariff and costs are a contribution, not an indemnity.