Recent Wins For Mathews Walker Clients
- Anne-Marie Dolan
- 7 days ago
- 3 min read
When a client comes to Mathews Walker with an employment dispute, outcomes are often reached by negotiation or at mediation, with only a small portion resulting in an ERA hearing. Those that do go to the ERA can be due to complications or situations beyond that of the original employment dispute. Mathews Walker advocates are well versed in ERA dealings and the various approaches that can be required in order to reach a fair outcome for their clients. The following are some recent examples of wins achieved by Mathews Walker advocates at the ERA.
Case Summary: Employer in liquidation
Our clients often come to us when they have been dismissed from a company that is financially in trouble. While it can make it more difficult to get payment from an employer who has gone into liquidation, there are still avenues to explore to ensure payment for our clients.
Mathews Walker advocate Kim Ahern represented Client B Client M at the ERA who were owed arrears for wages, notice and holiday leave when the company they worked for closed its business in December 2024.
Orders were sought requiring the directors to personally pay any amounts found to be owed as arrears and penalties for aiding and abetting breaches of their terms of employment. The ERA found the three directors were directly involved in making the decisions to dismiss the employees, and knew the essential facts that this involved the company failing to meet its obligation to pay outstanding wage and holiday pay entitlements.
In light of this our clients were able to recover from the three directors personally the arrears of wages, KiwiSaver contributions and holiday pay owed to them. In addition to this, our clients were awarded interest and half of the $4000 penalty each director was required to pay, with the other half going to the Authority for transfer to a crown account.
Case Summary: Employer challenging ERA orders
A win at the ERA isn’t always the end of the road in an employment dispute. Sometimes employers, on receiving orders to pay from the ERA will look to delay payment through challenges and stays of execution.
Following Paul Mathews’ win at the ERA for client S, his former employer applied for a stay of execution on the orders made to pay our client upwards of $36,000 in compensation, reimbursement of lost wages, costs and fees. This application is based on them challenging the ERA outcome and their belief that if they pay our client immediately, they may not be able to recoup that payment if their challenge is upheld. Our client denies that there will be difficulty in returning the money should the challenge be upheld given that he is employed full time with a significant salary and savings. The Employment Court found that the balance of convenience and overall justice favours not granting a stay of execution requiringtje employer to payour client immediately as per the orders of the ERA.
If you are dealing with an employment dispute, and need an advocate to help navigate the process and handle any complications, get in touch today for a free consultation. MathewsWalker.co.nz | 0800 612 355
Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. While we strive to keep the information accurate and up to date, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to the blog or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the blog for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk. For specific legal advice tailored to your situation, please contact a qualified legal professional.
Comments