Celebrity Employment Relations Authority Case

Updates about celebrities’ lives are frequently reported in the media.  However, we don’t often hear about celebrities in regards to an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) or Employment Court case.  As reported in the New Zealand Herald on Friday 31 March 2017, Kim Dotcom, well-known internet entrepreneur, had been ordered by the ERA, in March 2016, to pay two ex-employees unpaid wages of $8,850 and $17,526.  The ERA found that the same two employees, Pan Filo Orduna and John Tactaquin, had been unfairly dismissed.

The employees had claimed that their employment terms and conditions were varied after Mr Dotcom was arrested, following what was described as “the raid” on his home.  The employees felt that following “the raid” they undertook more onerous and time-consuming duties.   Mr Dotcom stated, in reply, that they were salaried, and therefore no additional remuneration was owing, that the employees were covered by a Hong Kong employment agreement and therefore subject to the law of Hong Kong, and that he relinquished his obligations as employer (to his wife) when he was arrested.

The employees appealed the ERA ruling to the Employment Court, with a claim for unpaid remuneration, for non-payment of a bonus and to increase remedies.  They also sought to relitigate the Authority’s rejection of their claims to penalties and to its refusal to allow interest on their compensatory damages.  Kim Dotcom also submitted a cross-challenge to the ERA determination. 

The employees then raised proceedings in August 2016 regarding undisclosed documents, such as employment agreements, job descriptions, hours of work records and payment details, that they felt were relevant to their case.  They also requested financial information for the same reason.  The Court determined that the documents, as they pertained to the parties claims in the case, did need to be provided, but not Kim Dotcom’s financial records.

It has now been reported by the New Zealand Herald that lawyers to both parties have confirmed that a confidential settlement has been reached.

If you have any questions about the disclosure of information or your Privacy Act obligations, please do not hesitate to contact us.