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.<\/p>\n
He never received pay for work he completed in February 2024, which authority member Rachel Larmer said was Longevity acting in an \u201cunlawful manner\u201d. <\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Diederik (Didi) Van Heerden and his wife Elsje were made redundant from Longevity at the same time. Photo \/ Supplied.<\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
Longevity had since paid van Heerden $770.12 for the wage arrears, giving an outstanding amount Longevity still owes of $206,638.47.<\/p>\n
Van Heerden\u2019s wife, Elsje, also worked for the company and was made redundant at the same time. Her case was settled before it reached the ERA.<\/p>\n
In May last year, the couple told NZME that the redundancy was like \u201chaving our throats cut\u201d.<\/p>\n
Longevity and the case of Robert Williams<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Williams was the site manager for the Three Kings development project that Longevity was undertaking. <\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
Corin informed Williams that the solution to the cost overruns was to change to a fixed price contract for the remainder of the structure. <\/p>\n
This meant Corin was to \u201cget 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\u201d before he told Williams he was now redundant.<\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
Longevity was looking to challenge the substantive decision on whether Williams was unjustifiably dismissed after he was let go in 2024.<\/p>\n
Lengthy court battle ensued<\/p>\n
In a lengthy court battle, Longevity challenged the authority\u2019s substantive determination in the Employment Court for both Van Heerden and Williams\u2019 cases, while not disputing the costs award. <\/p>\n
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\u2019s substantive decision.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Longevity did not pay the required sums into court, and neither Williams nor van Heerden had received payment.<\/p>\n
Longevity faces being put into liquidation in April.<\/p>\n
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\u2019 compromise to avoid liquidation. <\/p>\n
The proposal was approved by all creditors except by van Heerden and Williams. Although both were listed as \u201ccontingent creditors\u201d, the proposal did not record the substantial sums they had already been awarded by the authority.<\/p>\n
As a result, voting creditors were not informed of these liabilities when approving the compromise in June 2025. While other creditors\u2019 claims exceeded $752,500, including the two employees\u2019 awards, Longevity\u2019s total debts exceeded $1.1 million.<\/p>\n
The original liquidation application is scheduled to return to the High Court on April 20, this year.<\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n