Bully battler shrugs off Council SLAPP, wins $18k for its former employee
- 1 day ago
- 4 min read
Updated: 2 hours ago
Hamilton employment advocate Allan Halse, who specialises in workplace bullying cases, was the target of a SLAPP masquerading as a gag enforcement brought by Hamilton City Council in early 2021.
The Council won, and in February 2022 Halse was ordered to pay a $9,000 fine to the Crown. This type of litigation, with the government (including local) asserting its rights against the individual was very much a product of its time. Halse filed a challenge in the Employment Court.
Halse’s company Culturesafe NZ Ltd was also fined $9,000, but the company was placed in liquidation six months later as a result of having been targeted with another SLAPP brought by a Putaruru rest home.
Files ransomed
Following the liquidation Halse worked as a subcontractor for a company called Maniototo Enterprise Ltd for 17 months until January 2024 when he and its director Joanne Thomson fell out. Thomson revoked Halse’s access to emails and client files. Halse then started trading through his other company Cultureshift NZ Ltd, that he had incorporated in 2018.
Throughout 2024 and 2025 many dozens of clients of Maniototo with grievances against their employers were impacted by a secondary dispute. Maniototo claimed ownership of the client files, and clients were expected to pay significant release fees to Maniototo to have Halse resume advocating for them. Most could not afford to, or simply refused.
That was clearly an unsustainable business model. In 2025, notice was given by the Registrar of Companies to remove Maniototo from the register because the annual return had not been filed. As an aside, we understand that Inland Revenue objected to removal on the grounds that there was tax owed by the company.
Two employment matters that were affected by the fees dispute involved Hamilton City Council. There was Halse’s challenge (appeal) of the $9,000 fine for disparaging the Council, and an unrelated personal grievance claim by former Zoo worker Ashleigh Sanders, one of Halse’s clients.
A recent determination of the Employment Relations Authority noted that Sanders’ investigation meeting took place in December 2023, just weeks before Halse and Thomson fell out. The need to reconstruct files following Halse’s loss of access to them delayed many cases. In Sanders’ matter, that delay was at least two years.
Halse-Thomson fees dispute reached the Employment Court
Hamilton City Council, for whatever reason, went to a lot of trouble and ratepayer expense to defend its $9,000 “win” from February 2022.
In December 2024 the Court ordered Maniototo to “search its IT systems for documents related to the proceedings between Mr Halse and Hamilton City Council…” and Mr Halse to pay $1,000 to reimburse Thomson for “quite extensive work”, via the Court account.
In May 2026 the Court upheld the $9,000 penalty for disparaging the Council. It’s likely that most of the thin-skinned managers who were around in late 2020 and early 2021 have moved on, and for those now occupying their jobs, it’s an inherited embarrassment.
In particular, the employment settlement agreement that contained the non-disparagement clause being enforced was dated February 2014, and its purpose was ostensibly to resolve an unjustified dismissal dispute arising from a whistleblower retaliation event. But as Judge Holden found, “A record of settlement is not a mere contract, it has a statutory basis…” and “there is no expiry of the non-disparagement obligation”.
One of the terms of the record of settlement was that its very existence could not be disclosed!
For these reasons, I have advised clients to consider seeking a publicised consent determination (or consent judgment), in preference to a secret settlement with a gag clause that could be overly burdensome, create a fear of enforcement and exacerbate any lingering resentment. The parties often have the option of applying to have their names anonymised by the Authority.
What the generous Hamilton ratepayers think about how their money is being spent is between them and the Council. But Allan Halse has not gone away.
No anti-SLAPP legislation, so costs can be weaponised
Unlike most American States, New Zealand does not have legislation to prevent “lawfare” or Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation. Also costs follow the event, ie: the unsuccessful party is usually ordered to pay a contribution to the winner’s costs on a scale basis. We know of examples of employees who have been bankrupted on weaponised costs awards. We have limited information on Hamilton City Council’s intentions regarding enforcement of costs.
Sanders matter
Halse advocated for former Hamilton Zoo worker Ashleigh Sanders in the Authority. Three lawyers defended the Council from Sanders’ grievance, but Authority Member Nicola Craig recently made a finding of unjustified disadvantage. The grievance itself does not really stand out among the several hundred the Authority handles each year, apart from one detail.
An operations manager “T” who was promoted to director, was described to the Authority by a colleague as “grooming people he knew he could control and working to get rid of people he could not control, creating a climate of fear”. The Authority added “T starts texting Ms Sanders late at night… he asks her out for coffee once or twice but she turns him down”.
If the likes of “T” are getting promoted within the Council, that’s not good.
Member Craig ordered the Council to pay Sanders $18,000 without deduction as compensation for her grievance.
A few months after Council’s long-running grievance against sacked whistleblower Allan Halse “succeeded” in the Employment Court, he went on to win a payout for his client in the Authority, which is a strange set of circumstances no matter how you slice it.
Tristam Price
Editor
Comments