Legal Project Management Plan & Checklist
Purpose of this Guide: Use this plan when your client, a New Zealand employer, has been served with a personal grievance claim for unjustified dismissal under the Employment Relations Act 2000. This guide is designed for legal practitioners and corporate advocates representing employers to defend these grievances and protect against liability. It provides a complete workflow from the initial conflict checks and document intake through to MBIE mediation and hearings in the Employment Relations Authority.
Jurisdiction: New Zealand Employment Relations Authority (national registries). This parent plan covers the standard substantive and procedural justification defence. Specialised preliminary objections based on high-income bars, trial periods, contractor status, or challenges in the Employment Court are covered in the forks below.
The Process at a Glance: The process starts with a strict 14-calendar-day countdown to file the Form 3 Statement in Reply from the service date. The practitioner conducts a mixed-privacy and legal privilege audit of the employer's HR files and emails before releasing documents under the Privacy Act 2020. The practitioner performs a substantive and procedural audit of the dismissal process, identifying any employee obstruction. If unresolved through MBIE mediation and a Section 149 Record of Settlement, the practitioner files Form 3 and represents the client at the substantive Authority investigation meeting, seeking costs under the standardised daily tariff contribution baseline.
Use this plan when the dismissed employee earns NZ$200,000 or more in total annual remuneration and has brought a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal. This guide is used by practitioners representing employers to assert the 2026 high-income threshold bar to dismiss the grievance. It focuses on executing annualized calculations, applying transitional provisions, and drafting the jurisdictional objection.
Use this plan when the worker was engaged as a specified contractor and has brought a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal. This guide is used by legal practitioners representing employers to apply the 2026 specified contractor gateway to bar employee claims. It focuses on auditing the agreement against the five statutory criteria and pleading the status defence.
Use this plan when a party is dissatisfied with a determination issued by the Employment Relations Authority regarding an unjustified dismissal claim and wishes to challenge that determination de novo in the Employment Court. This guide is used by solicitors representing employers to navigate the formal appellate litigation track, file pleadings, and argue the challenge before a Judge.
Use this plan when the employee was dismissed under a 90-day trial period clause and has brought a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal. This guide is used by legal practitioners representing employers to assert the trial period as a complete jurisdictional bar. It focuses on auditing the agreement execution dates, wording compliance, and seeking dismissal of the claim.
Key Legislation and Case Law: Employment Relations Act 2000 - s 103(1)(a) (unjustified dismissal personal grievance); s 103A (test of justification incorporating the 2026 harmful error and employee obstruction standards); s 114 (90-day time limit); s 149 (mediation records of settlement); s 179 (challenges to determinations). Employment Relations Authority Regulations 2000 - Reg 8 (14-day reply limit); Reg 15 (memorandum foot requirements). Privacy Act 2020 - s 44 (20 working days response limit); IPP 11 (disclosure rules). Key cases: [A Limited v H [2016] NZEmpC 123](https://www.employmentcourt.govt.nz/) on overall context assessment in justification; [JP Morgan Chase Bank NA v Lewis [2015] NZCA 456](https://www.employmentcourt.govt.nz/) on uncertified settlement risks; [INY v HYI [2022] NZERA 89](https://www.era.govt.nz/) on employee mental capacity requirements.
* Disclaimer: We're nobody's lawyer, because we aren't lawyers. You are, so you know better than to take legal advice from an app. We also aren't accountants or dog trainers - just digital spirit guides taking zero liability for any of this. This site exists to gather the collective knowledge of practitioners like you. Verify everything and submit your feedback on the Defending Unjustified Dismissal Claims (Respondent) matter plan to improve the playbook. THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, it's a request for input.
This legal matter plan provides a structured workflow for L&E_LITIGATION cases, outlining the standard DISPUTE_LITIGATION process. Utilize these tracking templates to manage your legal cases efficiently.
Verify all prerequisite documentation has been obtained, cross-reference against the statutory requirements for this matter type, and confirm compliance with practice direction protocols.
Got a question about this plan?
Ask in the practitioner Discord - edge cases, rule changes, and jurisdiction-specific nuances, all in one place.
Prepare the relevant forms and supporting materials required under the applicable legislation, ensuring all mandatory fields are completed and all attachments are properly certified.
Draft and dispatch formal correspondence addressing the procedural requirements at this stage, including any required notices, requests for information, or proposals for resolution.
Coordinate the collection and review of all financial documentation required for disclosure, including statements, valuations, and supporting schedules as mandated by the rules.
Conduct a thorough review of all filed materials to ensure compliance with court requirements, verify service obligations have been met, and prepare for the next procedural milestone.
Assess the strategic considerations for interim applications, prepare supporting evidence, and draft the necessary documentation for urgent or time-sensitive relief sought.
Verify all prerequisite documentation has been obtained, cross-reference against the statutory requirements for this matter type, and confirm compliance with practice direction protocols.
Justification Standard: Section 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 mandates an objective assessment of the employer's conduct. Key case: A Limited v H [2016] NZEmpC 123 confirms that the court must evaluate the entire context of the employment relationship, and a pedantic scrutiny of evidence is not required if the overall objective of fairness is met.
Prepare the relevant forms and supporting materials required under the applicable legislation, ensuring all mandatory fields are completed and all attachments are properly certified.
Redundancy Consultation: Key case: Simpson Farms Ltd v Aberhart [2006] ERNZ 825 outlines that redundancy consultation requires the employer to present a genuine proposal before a final decision is made, provide precise information to enable the employee to respond, and make an open-minded effort to reach a consensus.
Draft and dispatch formal correspondence addressing the procedural requirements at this stage, including any required notices, requests for information, or proposals for resolution.