“The economy drop of 35% has destroyed my companies,” he said.
“I’m just a victim of a drop in the market.”
Longevity and the case of Diederik van Heerden
Diederik took his case for unjustifiable dismissal to the ERA in 2024.
He initially worked as an independent contractor in 2021 but became an employee in May 2023 as a construction operations manager. But in January 2024, he was called to a meeting and told he was being made redundant as the renovation side of the business had closed.
He never received pay for work he completed in February 2024, which authority member Rachel Larmer said was Longevity acting in an “unlawful manner”.
Longevity was ordered to pay van Heerden $206,138.47, consisting of $166,153.85 in lost remuneration, $4984.62 as the compulsory employer contribution to KiwiSaver and $35,000 in distress compensation for his unjustified dismissals.
Diederik (Didi) Van Heerden and his wife Elsje were made redundant from Longevity at the same time. Photo / Supplied.
When that went unpaid, it was ordered to pay a total of $207,408.59, consisting of $500 as part of the penalty imposed on it for breaching the employment act and $770.12 in wage arrears for the hours he had worked on February 28, 2024, but not been paid for.
The company was also ordered to pay interest on any part of the $207,408.59 van Heerden had been awarded that remained outstanding from May 15, 2025, onwards until paid in full.
Longevity had since paid van Heerden $770.12 for the wage arrears, giving an outstanding amount Longevity still owes of $206,638.47.
Van Heerden’s wife, Elsje, also worked for the company and was made redundant at the same time. Her case was settled before it reached the ERA.
In May last year, the couple told NZME that the redundancy was like “having our throats cut”.
Longevity and the case of Robert Williams
Williams initially started working with Longevity as an independent contractor in July 2023 until he became a full-time construction operations manager later in the year.
Williams was the site manager for the Three Kings development project that Longevity was undertaking.
Corin emailed Williams in March 2024, raising concerns about the cost overruns that had occurred for the second level of the building project at Three Kings.
Corin informed Williams that the solution to the cost overruns was to change to a fixed price contract for the remainder of the structure.
This meant Corin was to “get rid of all the labour-only contract workers [14 of them] and to get a fixed price quote from a builder which includes site management” before he told Williams he was now redundant.
Longevity initially claimed that Williams had resigned or that he had abandoned his employment before acknowledging that his employment had been ended via an email sent by Corin.
The authority ruled in its substantive decision on April 26, 2025, that Longevity was to pay Williams $67,958.67, consisting of unpaid notice pay as wage arrears and interest, lost remuneration, including the KiwiSaver contributions, holiday pay and distress compensation for his unjustified dismissal.
Longevity was looking to challenge the substantive decision on whether Williams was unjustifiably dismissed after he was let go in 2024.
Lengthy court battle ensued
In a lengthy court battle, Longevity challenged the authority’s substantive determination in the Employment Court for both Van Heerden and Williams’ cases, while not disputing the costs award.
Both van Heerden and Williams applied to strike out that challenge or impose conditions on it, and Longevity, in turn, sought a stay of execution of the authority’s substantive decision.
The court heard both applications together and, on December 5, 2025, declined to strike out the challenge but granted a conditional stay, which required Longevity to pay the awarded sums into court within 28 days, to be held on interest.
Longevity did not pay the required sums into court, and neither Williams nor van Heerden had received payment.
Longevity faces being put into liquidation in April.
In April 2025, a creditor who was owed $40,000 applied to the High Court to liquidate Longevity, with their debt growing to $60,000. In response, Corin proposed a creditors’ compromise to avoid liquidation.
The proposal was approved by all creditors except by van Heerden and Williams. Although both were listed as “contingent creditors”, the proposal did not record the substantial sums they had already been awarded by the authority.
As a result, voting creditors were not informed of these liabilities when approving the compromise in June 2025. While other creditors’ claims exceeded $752,500, including the two employees’ awards, Longevity’s total debts exceeded $1.1 million.
The original liquidation application is scheduled to return to the High Court on April 20, this year.
Corin said Longevity is unable to pay van Heerden and Williams the money it has been ordered to pay them, so it will not be doing so.
He said there was a risk that Longevity could be put into liquidation at the High Court hearing, and he was actively working to avoid that.
He did not identify where the money would come from to pay Longevity’s creditors.
Former employees’ successful case
Both Williams and van Heerden were successful in their cases.
The authority ruled that within 28 days, Longevity had to pay $221,660 to van Heerden, while Corin is ordered to personally pay van Heerden $8436, which includes contributions to his legal costs.
Longevity was ordered to pay $78,013 to Williams, while Corin was ordered to pay $18,401, including more than $10,000 in wage arrears Longevity had defaulted to pay, and $1000 in legal costs.
But Corin told NZME he would be appealing the decisions, saying the ERA had not taken all the evidence into account.
“There is an appeal for this decision, because the ERA didn’t allow substantial evidence to be included in the hearing, which proved my case, because there was too much evidence.”
He alleged both Williams and van Heerden knew about looming redundancies and they were not unjustifiably dismissed.
“There was basically 20,000 pages of minutes that show that all the employees knew about what was happening for a whole year before the redundancy came, and yet they were able to just make a statement and say they never knew anything about it. And that got believed.”
Employment law advocate Nita Sadie was representing van Heerden and Williams and told NZME the men were seeking only what the authority had already determined was lawfully owed to them.
“They remain hopeful that compliance will ultimately be achieved.”
Brianna McIlraith is a Queenstown-based reporter for Open Justice covering courts in the lower South Island. She has been a journalist since 2018 and has had a strong interest in business and financial journalism.