It called the delay a two day slip, but the court counted 73 and gave it no more time
A welder's grievance payout will stand after his former employer missed the deadline to challenge it, Chief Judge Christina Inglis ruled 22 July 2026.
Steel Master Co Limited had asked the Employment Court for leave to file a late challenge to an Employment Relations Authority determination, together with a stay of the Authority's orders while that challenge was heard. The Chief Judge dismissed both applications.
The welder's employment ended in May 2024. He raised a personal grievance, which the Authority upheld. It ordered Steel Master to pay him $11,000 in compensation, $9,593.86 for eight weeks' lost wages and holiday pay, $4,443.61 in unpaid leave entitlements, and $71.55 for the filing fee. A later costs determination added $5,071.55.
Under the Employment Relations Act 2000, a party dissatisfied with an Authority determination has a strict 28 day window to take the matter to the Court. For Steel Master, that window closed on 26 August 2025. The company tried to file a statement of claim on 28 August, two days late. The registry rejected it and advised that leave to extend time was needed.
Steel Master then sought the welder's consent to the late filing, which was refused on 19 September 2025. Its formal application to extend time was not filed until 7 November 2025.
The company argued it should not be penalised for what it framed as a two day slip caused by an administrative error. Chief Judge Inglis did not accept that, treating the delay as running the full 73 days from the expiry of the deadline. Citing earlier authority, she said a delay of more than two months "must be regarded as very substantial or even gross".
An adequate explanation had been given for the first two days, she found, but not for the remaining 71. Steel Master said part of that time was spent waiting to see whether the welder would agree to the late filing, but the judge noted that the power to extend time rests with the Court, not the other party.
That left a further 49 day gap. The only reason offered was "counsel's unavailability at the time", which appeared in submissions rather than sworn evidence and was not developed. The judge said it had not been explained why other arrangements could not have been made once the registry had flagged the problem.
On prejudice, Chief Judge Inglis described the welder as a vulnerable migrant worker who had been kept from the fruits of his success. Steel Master had offered to hold the disputed money in a trust account, but she said that only secured the funds and did not cure the prejudice. The company had earlier paid $3,292.35 for the parts of the award it did not intend to challenge.
With leave declined, the Court held it had no jurisdiction to grant a stay, and the Authority's remedies remain enforceable. The welder was awarded costs on the application.
