She wore the uniform, used the email, and called herself branch manager
A worker who quit her job to travel and work with a man she met on a dating app was never actually employed, New Zealand's Employment Relations Authority has ruled.
The Authority dismissed the worker's claims on November 4, 2026, finding that her arrangement with the sole trader was an informal contracting arrangement - not an employment relationship.
The pair met in Auckland in late 2023 through an online dating application. As the relationship developed, the sole trader proposed establishing a business operation in Christchurch. The worker would handle administrative and customer-facing tasks. He talked up what they could earn together.
She resigned from her existing job.
They rented a house in Christchurch that doubled as a base for the business. They travelled to jobs in Napier, New Plymouth and other central North Island locations. The sole trader covered their accommodation costs, bought her a vest and jacket bearing Restore & Recolour branding - the name of a family company he had previously part-owned - and she opened a company email account.
There was no written agreement of any kind. No employment contract, no independent contractor agreement, no record of the arrangement at all.
The payments that followed were irregular. The worker provided evidence of amounts totalling more than $7,500, while the sole trader said she had received at least $16,000. Some payments referenced specific jobs. Others were tangled up with rent, bond contributions, travel costs and shared living expenses. The sole trader also referred to having made various loans.
The worker said she expected roughly $1,000 a week and an employment agreement. Neither materialised in any consistent form.
"South Island Branch Manager"
Despite the loose setup, the worker was partially embedded in the business. She used the company email account and gave herself the title "South Island Branch Manager" in her email signature - something the sole trader said he did not know about at the time. One customer recorded that the sole trader had said she was training to run the business in Christchurch.
The working relationship ended after a social gathering in Palmerston North, likely in early October 2024. The worker told one of the sole trader's friends about his potential business arrangements with another woman. Things escalated, and the sole trader made clear their working relationship was over. He later collected his tools from the Christchurch property after she left them outside for him.
Who was actually the employer?
The case had a tangled start. The worker initially named Restore & Recolour Limited as the respondent, addressing her complaint to the sole trader as "Director." He was not a director. He had held a 25 percent shareholding in the company but relinquished it in December 2023 to resume trading independently. The company's director said he had never interviewed or employed the worker and had no knowledge of her while she was working with the sole trader.
The Authority struck Restore & Recolour from the proceedings - essentially removing it as a party, since it had no involvement in the work arrangement. The branded clothing and email account, the Authority found, were consequences of the sole trader's permitted use of the company's branding, not evidence that the company had engaged the worker or played any part in her working arrangements.
Not employment
On the central question, the Authority weighed several factors. Some pointed toward employment: the worker was integrated into the sole trader's business, performed a customer-facing role, depended on him for available work, and did not seek work elsewhere.
But those features were outweighed. No tax was deducted at source. No leave entitlements were provided. The worker was not required to work fixed hours or make herself available. Her payments were linked to specific customer jobs and resulting revenue rather than to hours worked. The extensive WhatsApp messages between the parties contained no reference to an offer of employment and no discussion of basic employment terms - no start date, no agreed hours, no leave. One message used the word "wages," but it was an isolated reference that did not shift the overall picture.
The sole trader's other workers gave broadly consistent evidence: no invoices, no written agreements, payment by daily rates or variable amounts tied to the work, and responsibility for their own tax.
The Authority found that the real nature of the relationship was not employment. It was, in the Authority's words, better characterised as "an informal contracting arrangement combining the parties' personal dealings, intermittent paid work and their efforts to develop a business venture."
The worker's claims - including unjustified dismissal, unpaid wages and breach of good faith - were all dismissed. Without an employment relationship, the Authority had no jurisdiction to consider them.
The sole trader flagged potential counterclaims for time spent on the matter, loss of earnings, reputational damage, overpaid rent, a personal loan and bond contributions. But the Authority noted it lacked jurisdiction over those financial disputes as well, given the finding that no employment relationship existed.
For HR teams, the case is a practical reminder that the outward signs of employment - branded clothing, a company email, a customer-facing role - do not make someone an employee when the underlying arrangement lacks the fundamentals: agreed hours, regular pay, tax deductions, and a mutual intention to create the relationship.
