Our last article, Employment Court Report 2025, looked at the statistics forming part of the inaugural Employment Court report. The report highlighted that employment litigation was at a 10-year high, the number of self-litigants increased, and the Court was concerned about the complexity of navigating the system and the costs associated with resolving claims.
This article compares the Employment Court Report 2025 with the Employment Relations Authority Report 2025 (you can view our article on the Authority’s report here). We look at where the blocks and barriers are across the employment dispute resolution process from mediation to the Authority, to the Court. We also set out what changes may be ahead for these processes.
At a Glance
There is an uptick in new claims being filed in the Authority and in the Court with Authority applications increasing by 12% between 2024 and 2025, and Court filings increasing by 16%. The increase in filing outweighs the rate at which both institutions are completing matters, which may gradually cause further delays for the system.
The 2025 Reports for both the Authority and the Court indicate that the delays are usually at the front-end of the process rather than after the investigation meeting or hearing. Both the Authority and the Court perform strongly in issuing 93% and 98% of determinations respectively within three months of the investigation meeting or hearing. At the front-end, there are no set timeframes of matters being allocated to Members or Judges, and dates setting down for the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”). From our anecdotal experience, there are delays of up to 5 months for matters to be allocated and CMCs to be scheduled, although delays can be even longer. However, at a recent Employment Law Conference, an Authority Member indicated that there may be changes in the Authority around timeframes, for example, from when a matter is allocated to a Member to having a CMC and setting a date for an investigation meeting. While this would provide greater certainty for litigants, this may not address the delays at the front-end between filing a Statement of Problem or Reply, and the matter being allocated to a Member.
Additionally, Mediation Services is currently reporting a wait time of between 6-7 weeks for a mediation date for non-urgent matters, with a shorter period for higher priority cases (typically matters involving ongoing employment). There can be a longer delay depending on location for in-person mediations and depending on the parties’ availability. These delays may push more parties to consider whether it is worth settling before mediation, or even arranging private mediation (noting that there are costs associated with this).
Movement between employment institutions
Employment problems will sometimes follow a non-linear path between mediation, the Authority, and the Court. There is an opportunity for parties to settle at any stage of the process and even if they are preparing for, or part way through an Authority investigation meeting or Court hearing, or awaiting a determination/decision.
The Authority reported that 1,946/3,070 (approximately 63%) of its applications in 2025 were referred to, or directed to, mediation. The Authority also reported that 18% of its determinations were challenged in the Court, down from 22% in 2024.
The Court will also triage new matters by deciding whether they need to be referred to mediation, or whether they can proceed to a Judicial Settlement Conference (“JSC”). However, parties in the Court should not expect that these options will be automatically offered by the Court. This can be contrasted with the Authority, which actively refers or directs the majority of its matters to mediation, and filing in the Authority is sometimes used as a strategy by applicants to oblige respondents to attend mediation if they have refused to attend on a voluntary basis previously.
There is limited appeal of cases from the Court to the Court of Appeal, and from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. This is primarily due to there being limited rights of appeal and leave must be obtained to appeal to both higher Courts. In 2025, 14 cases were subject to an appeal from the Employment Court to the Court of Appeal, and 4 cases were appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court Uber case is a high-profile example of a case that went through the stages from the Employment Court to the Supreme Court (skipping the Authority). It took over four years for the case to be concluded, and over that time, there was a change in Government and legislative changes proposed on the subject-matter relevant to that case (i.e. whether the Uber drivers were employees rather than contractors).
Self-litigants
The Authority reported that around 18% of parties were self-represented in the Authority with no substantial increase or decline from 2023 or 2024. However, the Court reported that there was an increase in self-represented litigants. Its report stated that it is taking steps to provide resources to self-litigants and review its internal processes to streamline the process for them.
The Chief Judge of the Court has expressed concern that accessing justice through formal employment dispute resolution can be expensive (especially for low-wage workers), procedurally complex, and self-litigants can feel alienated from their case. She contrasted this with the original purpose of the Authority to resolve disputes in a non-technical, speedy manner, and deliver prompt merits-based decisions. Some ideas that she suggested could be implemented within employment institutions are:
These steps would add to existing resources available on the Court’s website, including, guidance, information, and video resources.
Governmental review in progress
The Minister of Workplace Relations and Safety is currently in the process of reviewing feedback from the public on their experience of the employment dispute process and where improvements could be made following a public consultation process earlier this year. The Minister has stated that she wishes to understand the root causes of disputes, the barriers within the system, and potential solutions. The regulation of employment advocates could be addressed as part of this review. That feedback may potentially influence future policy and legislative changes which we can expect to see debated and considered over the next couple of years.
If you would like advice about any employment issues, including representation at mediation, in the Employment Relations Authority or the Employment Court, please contact the Black Door Law team by:
Disclaimer: This information is intended as general legal information and does not constitute legal advice.
