Can a failed employment advocacy company win a fees claim in the Disputes Tribunal?

Mandy is an ACC beneficiary and former office worker from Auckland.  Following a serious injury sustained during a visit to a chiropractor in 2021, which left her unable to work, Mandy went on ACC.

Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), established in 1974, pays 80% of an injured worker’s wages or salary during the time the worker is unfit to work – regardless of whether the injury happened at work or outside work.  Funding is mostly from payroll deductions.  Non-workers are also eligible for ACC-funded treatment.

Mandy’s health problems as a result of her injury were ongoing, and the cost of treatment not covered by ACC forced the sale of her house.  In June 2023 her employer terminated her employment during a change of ownership.

But the employer’s process was flawed, and in January 2025 the Employment Relations Authority awarded Mandy $18,000 in compensation, and $4,500 in costs.

Complications with advocacy

Mandy was originally represented by Hamilton advocate Allan Halse, who specialises in claims that involve workplace bullying.  Following the litigation-driven liquidation of his 2014 company CultureSafe NZ Ltd in August 2022, Halse worked as a subcontractor to Maniototo Enterprises Ltd, trading as Hamilton Culturesafe.  That business relationship lasted until Maniototo’s director Joanne Thomson dismissed him, in January 2024.  Halse now trades through his remaining company Cultureshift NZ Ltd.

The falling-out between Halse and Thomson, with Thomson locking Halse out of Maniototo’s IT system and seizing client files, has been well documented and even reported by media:

Anti-bullying crusader Allan Halse ousted from Hamilton Culturesafe in acrimonious split - NZ Herald – 25 February 2024

It even came before the Employment Court:

2024-NZEmpC-242-Halse-and-CultureSafe-NZ-Ltd-v-Hamilton-City-Council-Anor-interlocutory-judgment-judgment-of-Judge-Holden-5-December-2024.pdf   

In this interlocutory judgment, the Court ordered Halse to pay $1,000 to Thomson as reimbursement for the time likely to be spent collating records that Halse needs to support his challenge to a $9,000 penalty for disparaging Hamilton City Council.  As we reported in January 2025, Judge Holden did not accept Halse’s contention that Thomson’s job should take “five minutes”, however the $1,000 reimbursement ordered was modest and Halse provided evidence that he paid it the same day (but still hasn’t received his documents).

Client files belong to Maniototo

From August 2022 to January 2024, any client who wanted Allan Halse to advocate for them to resolve an employment relationship problem (generally filed in the Employment Relations Authority and usually resolved in mediation) had to sign an Authority to Act (or similar) with Maniototo.  From January 2024, most Maniototo clients followed Halse and became clients of Cultureshift, because Thomson’s own advocacy skills was unknown and to be fair, untested.  Thomson is known to have subcontracted out advocacy work to Christchurch advocate Maryline Suchley who was previously mentored by Halse. 

Ailing shakedown factory

Throughout most of 2024 and probably into 2025 to a lesser degree, Maniototo’s main income appears to have been derived from charging exit fees to clients who wanted to transfer their files to Cultureshift.  The basis for this appears to be that Halse had carried out advocacy work for the clients as a subcontractor of Maniototo, that company was entitled to be paid for the work, and any arrangement (or dispute) around how Maniototo remunerated Halse during his 17 months as a subcontractor was not the clients’ concern.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, most of the 100 or so clients affected either couldn’t pay, or refused to.  Where Halse was able to reconstruct the ransomed client files and continue with the grievance claims, the clients would often receive an invoice from Maniototo along with debt collection threats for work purportedly done to date.

Mandy was one such client.  She says the than $8,900 (previously $15,000) Maniototo wants for attending a four hour investigation meeting and two teleconferences, and drafting and filing a 2.5 page Statement of Claim is excessive, likewise the 19.5% interest it wanted to charge, and she says Maniototo’s conduct amounted to harassment.  As to Suchley’s role, generally subcontractors have little to no say in their customer’s charge-out rates and debt collection activities.

Lights out

Maniototo failed to file its annual return in June, and was warned by the Companies Office that it was overdue and Maniototo would be removed from its register after 16 September 2025, unless an objection was lodged.

If this was deliberate, the going rate for a liquidation of a small company is around $6,000, but it is possible to wind up a company at minimal cost with a declaration that all debts have been settled.  But allowing the company to “drop off” the register by not filing the annual return is risky especially if a creditor, particularly Inland Revenue, objects to its removal.

In fact, Inland Revenue did object.

Mandy told us of a planned hearing before the Disputes Tribunal in early December, but hopes that despite Inland Revenue’s objection, Maniototo will have been removed from the Companies register by then, and the hearing won’t be necessary.

And what happens to the other client files held by Thomson?  Given that the newest of these files would have been created in December 2023, it’s likely that most of the affected employees who raised grievances have given up, drawn a line under this dumpster fire and moved on.

Tristam Price, Editor