When a co-founder publicly vows not to pay a legally-binding order, the story stops being a workplace spat and becomes a test of whether New Zealand’s dispute machinery actually works. Candoo co-founder James McGovern told Stuff a former employee is “not getting another cent” of an Employment Relations Authority compliance order, while former franchisees chase more than $77,000 in unpaid tribunal and ERA orders against Candoo Franchising Ltd.
The orders exist. They are binding. And months on, no one has been paid.
The orders are real, the money isn’t
Candoo, trading as Candoo Cleaning, Candoo Lawns and Candoo Crew, was set up two years ago by Australian James McGovern and New Zealander Allias Grindrod, and claimed $1M+ in annual revenue and 50+ franchisees signed in its first year. Former franchisee Jivtesh Singh has received nothing more than a year after Candoo was ordered to pay him $17,000. The tribunal found McGovern made promises of work that were not kept before Singh paid a lump sum to sign up. Singh has since left the country, having lost an estimated $30,000 in life savings. A dozen former franchisees have made similar claims totalling more than $120,000.
McGovern and Grindrod dispute the framing, arguing the complainants are a coordinated group using media coverage to “organise, pressure, and commercialise claims” against the business. That defence deserves airing, but it doesn’t move the legal position. Tribunal and ERA decisions are made on evidence, they have been issued, and they are binding regardless of whether the claimants know each other.
The enforcement gap is structural
Here is the uncomfortable truth for anyone who wins one of these orders. The Disputes Tribunal and the ERA can determine liability and issue an order, but they cannot compel payment. The winner has to register the order in the District Court and pursue enforcement themselves, at further cost and delay. For small sums, the maths often doesn’t work. A builder who won a $35,600 tribunal order told RNZ he had almost zero confidence he’d ever see the money, because enforcement required outlay he couldn’t justify.
The tribunal’s own numbers show the strain. It resolved 909 claims in 2024, up 7 percent, but only 52 percent within the 90-day target, down from 56 percent the year before. The jurisdictional cap sits at $30,000, with a bill to lift it to $60,000 before Parliament, yet more than half of all claims are for under $5,000, exactly where enforcement costs swallow the amount at stake.
The insolvency backdrop makes it worse. Liquidator appointments hit 710 in Q1 2026, and liquidations rose 53.8 percent year-on-year to 586 in 2024/25. A company that receives an order may have little left to enforce against, or may have been structured to hold few assets from the start.
Personal liability is the tool that bites
There is a route that works, and a recent ruling shows the ERA is willing to take it. In June 2026 three company directors were ordered to personally cover $17,047.61 in unpaid wages and holiday pay, each hit with a $4,000 penalty for aiding and abetting employment breaches. Authority member Robin Arthur found the breach “was caused by intentional decisions rather than occurring inadvertently.”
That framing matters. A public vow not to pay a binding order is about as clear an expression of intent as it gets. And when the company in that case went into liquidation, the affected workers were forced to pursue the directors personally, a route Candoo’s claimants would have if Candoo Franchising Ltd is wound up.
The sector already has a bad reputation
Candoo isn’t operating in a vacuum. A report co-authored by Ringa Hora and Building Service Contractors of New Zealand, published 30 July 2026, found cleaning franchisees earning “well below minimum wage” on recycled contracts, with the industry growing from 4,788 businesses in 2014 to 7,782 in 2024, two-thirds of them with no employees. The Four Square Thames case, where an owner and his company copped $44,000 in penalties and Foodstuffs debannered the store, shows the reputational hit lands fast when a franchisor cares.
Conduct, not cashflow
The regulatory direction is clear. In March 2026 Inland Revenue signalled that persistent failure to remit PAYE could attract criminal prosecution, on the logic that once a payment obligation is treated as conduct rather than debt, outcomes change fast. The same logic applies here. As BusinessNZ argued in 2024, small players “are not in a position of market strength to pick and choose” who they deal with. A founder announcing he won’t pay a binding order isn’t managing cashflow. He’s making a conduct statement, and the enforcement tools that treat it as one are the ones worth watching.
Sources
- Stuff: ‘Not getting another cent’: Co-founder vows not to pay ex-employee – as others chase thousands (2026-08-01)
- HRD: Authority pins personal liability on company directors for unpaid wages (2026-06-12)
- Newsroom: ‘Punitive’ deals leave cleaning franchisees earning below minimum wage – report (2026-07-30)
- 1News: Four Square in Thames fined after migrants pay $120k to secure jobs (2026-07-27)
- Disputes Tribunal Annual Report for 2024 (2024)
- Latest Company Statistics – Companies Office (2025)
- Statistics – Insolvency and Trustee Service (2025)
- Interest.co.nz: Inland Revenue gets much tougher when PAYE isn’t paid on time (2026-03-01)
- Scoop: Better Approach To Business Payments Needed (2024-02-01)
- RNZ: ‘It really ruined me’: Builder takes thousands of dollars, then vanishes
Join the discussion
Add useful context, ask a good question, or challenge an idea — keep it specific and respectful.