Unless orders in NZ employment cases: meaning, deadlines, and consequences
An Unless order, if granted, gives a party one last opportunity to remedy their breach.
Unless orders and strikeout - Employment Court procedure that can end a case
An unless order is a procedural order that gives a party a final opportunity to comply. If they do not, their claim or defence can be struck out. Unless orders are most common in Court-level litigation (including Employment Court matters), where deadlines and compliance are critical.
The principles applying to a strikeout application can be summarised in this way:
- The facts pleaded in the statement of claim are assumed to be true.
- The proceeding must be clearly untenable before it can be struck out.
- The jurisdiction to strike out is used sparingly and only in clear cases.
- The jurisdiction to strike out is not displaced by the need to decide difficult questions of law.
Evidence considered in a strikeout application is also limited to what is undisputed. This is because the strikeout application is dealt with on the basis that the plaintiff is able to prove its pleaded facts. The Court of Appeal has acknowledged that there may be cases where a factual allegation is so demonstrably contrary to indisputable fact that the matter ought not to be allowed to proceed further.
If this is done by way of an Unless order then the statement of claim will be struck out if a party does not comply with the order. This often involves cases where there has been a history of failure to comply with Court orders for no good reason. An Unless order, if granted, gives a party one last opportunity to remedy their breach. They are "sparingly used" and only where there has been a "history of failure" to comply with orders.
Why this matters
- Non-compliance can be fatal: missing court-ordered steps can lead to strikeout.
- It is a leverage tool: unless orders often force the other side to actually do what they have been ordered to do.
- Courts still act with restraint: strikeout is serious and the Court will consider fairness and proportionality.
Principles commonly applied
- Proceedings should not be struck out unless it is clear the Court can do nothing about them.
- When a strike out is being sought, everything should be done to ensure a trial is not denied.
- The Court must be certain that a claim cannot succeed.
- The Court should be slow to strike out a claim where there is some chance of establishing a cause of action. (If the facts could be better pleaded, the Court should allow amendment.)
Read our full article
Related articles
Browse all articlesRegulation of employment advocates: what the NZLS report found and why it matters
There is no case to regulate employment advocates. The report, Regulating Lawyers in Aotearoa New Zealand finds it to be a waste of time. The Employment Law Institute of New Zealand ELINZ go on about this but they are unable to articulate a specific case for regulation of employment advocates.
ERA settlements and s 150A "Payment on resolution of problem": paying advocates directly and GST Invoices
Parties can agree that an advocate is paid directly by the employer in terms of an s 149 record of settlement. "Payment" excludes legal or advocacy services where such service is a separate term of the settlement and a GST invoice for a defined sum is provided to the other party.
"No win, no fee" for employers: when it exists and what to do instead
There are a lot of employers who think that "No Win, No Fee" is an arrangement available to their business in defending a personal grievance or other claims.
Employment Advocates in the Employment Court
Auckland District Law Society ADLS calls for ban on Employment Advocates in the Employment Court. We wrote to the Minister to give a submission.
Authority to Act form for personal grievance cases: what it is and why it matters
Got a Personal Grievance? Ask for an Authority To Act form. Even the regulated no win no fee employment law advocates are not playing by the rules.
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.
