Orders also ask company to pay compensation, remuneration, penalties
In proceedings focusing on the existence of an employment relationship, New Zealand’s Employment Court dismissed an application seeking to stay the execution of the Employment Relations Authority’s orders for a company to pay specific amounts.
In a determination on 25 November 2025, the Authority ordered the plaintiff in Frames Direct NZ Limited v Zhang [2026] NZEmpC 10, to pay the defendant:
The plaintiff challenged the Authority’s determination. The plaintiff also applied to stay the execution of the Authority’s orders pending the outcome of its challenge.
The Employment Court of New Zealand declined to stay the execution of the Authority’s orders. The court found the defendant entitled to costs and free to take steps seeking to enforce the Authority’s orders.
The court ruled that the balance of convenience and the overall interests of justice weighed against granting a stay.
First, the court acknowledged that the plaintiff might be undergoing financial difficulty. However, the court saw evidence suggesting that the plaintiff had available financial resources. The court noted that the plaintiff allegedly offered privately to pay the full amount.
On the other hand, the court saw no financial records or other evidence to support the plaintiff’s assertions that denying a stay would cause its business substantial financial and operational hardship or render its challenge ineffectual.
Second, the court accepted that the plaintiff pursued its challenge in good faith.
Third, the court held that issuing a stay would injuriously affect the defendant, the successful party in the Authority’s proceedings, by hindering his access to the sums awarded in his favour for an unknown period of time.
Fourth, the court saw no evidence that granting or rejecting a stay would impact any third party.
Fifth, the court saw no novel issues, important issues, or issues engaging the broader public interest arising in the proceedings.
Sixth, the court deemed it impossible to confidently assess the challenge’s likely merits at this early stage and before the evidence has undergone testing. The court noted that it might need to resolve multiple disputed facts and credibility issues.
