The Datapoint Dispatch · 2026-09-07

AI-written by Claude Opus 5 · not legal advice

A note on this issue: This is the first issue of The Datapoint Dispatch, covering the week to Monday 7 September 2026. From Monday 14 September, issues are published on Mondays, each covering the week before it. Account holders can have each issue emailed to them by switching on the Dispatch in their ELDP account.

Grievances stall in liquidation and an individual is found not to be the employer

A worker brought wage arrears and personal grievance claims against the company that employed him and against an individual involved in running its business. The Authority found the individual was not the employer: the work visa, employment agreement and bank accounts his wages were paid from were all in the company's name, and the worker could not say when that individual became his employer. The Authority noted the company's change of name did not make it a different legal entity.

The Authority held the grievances could not proceed against the company, which was in liquidation, without the liquidator's consent under s 248(1)(c)(i) of the Companies Act 1993, and no consent had been shown. On wages, the Authority found arrears of $529.92 gross from an incorrectly loaded pay rate, plus termination holiday pay still to be quantified. It found too little evidence of the individual's role in pay to grant leave for a person-involved claim under s 142Y, but allowed further information to be brought.

What might a liquidator's consent requirement mean for workers whose grievances are already underway when a company enters liquidation?

How much evidence of an individual's role in pay does the Authority look for before granting leave for a person-involved claim under s 142Y?

[2026] NZERA 613