Top storiesNew ZealandPoliticsBusinessEntertainmentSportsWorld

Wellington mayoral candidate court-ordered to pay workers

Monday, 10 February 2025

Messages and court correspondence allegedly to and from Wellington Live owner Graham Bloxham and a contractor who says he is owed almost $5000. Bloxham is running the be mayor of Wellington. The bottom left message is from Bloxham to the contractor, Josh Cross. Bloxham claims some to be false.
Messages and court correspondence allegedly to and from Wellington Live owner Graham Bloxham and a contractor who says he is owed almost $5000. Bloxham is running the be mayor of Wellington. The bottom left message is from Bloxham to the contractor, Josh Cross. Bloxham claims some to be false.

Graham Bloxham ‒ the man wanting to be Wellington’s next mayor ‒ has been issued at least two court orders to pay his workers and has had bailiffs sent to seize his car.

While Bloxham, if elected, would not be the direct boss of the council’s nearly-2000 staff, he would be the figurehead of an organisation that in the last financial year took in nearly $500m in rates and has debt well in excess of $1 billion.

News Bloxham is throwing his hat in the ring to be Wellington mayor, as well as for a councillor seat, prompted Josh Cross ‒ a former contractor to Bloxham’s Wellington Live Facebook page ‒ to come forward with documents outlining a legal and text battle over unpaid bills. It resulted in the Disputes Tribunal ordering Bloxham’s company to pay Cross $4938 in 2024.

Graham Bloxham, owner of Wellington Live, is running for mayor.
Graham Bloxham, owner of Wellington Live, is running for mayor.

Cross said, as a mayoral and council hopeful, Wellingtonians had a right to know about Bloxham’s business dealings.

A separate 2017 Employment Relations Authority finding saw a company Bloxham directed, Social Cooking, ordered to pay almost $1200 for unpaid wages to his former worker Siobhan Henderson. Henderson said she got her money back after getting bailiffs to go to Bloxham’s home.

Text messages between Bloxham and Cross, as he tried to get money owed, have been supplied to The Post.

“You have completely over promised,” Bloxham texted in September 2023.

“You sold yourself as a videographer, but I have not seen 1 video, a photographer but haven’t seen much of that, most of the good posts were given to you. It’s just not good.”

Wellington Live owner Graham Bloxham at a Wellington City Council meeting in 2023.
Wellington Live owner Graham Bloxham at a Wellington City Council meeting in 2023.

The service agreement between Cross and Wellington Live was for him to provide “social media management and advertising sales services”, but Cross confirmed some video and photography was expected and he was trained and experienced in both.

He said he was promised training, which amounted to being shown how to screenshot photos to use while avoiding copyright issues.

Cross said Bloxham did not act on the tribunal’s order to pay $4938. He supplied a copy of his instruction to a bailiff to seize Wellington Live property, which included a sign-written car, a smart phone and other equipment.

He said Bloxham was no longer at his listed Hataitai address so he sent the bailiff to another address. They eventually closed the file after discovering the car was not in the company name, so could not be seized.

In August, Cross sent Bloxham a statutory demand for the money, now up to $5408 with enforcement costs and interest. But he said he dropped further legal action to recover his money due to the cost.

Bloxham, in response, made his own allegations about Cross, claiming the original debt was just $300, that he had laid a complaint with police that Cross – or someone in his “group” – had threatened to kill him, that he had falsified documents, and that he was getting the tribunal decision overturned.

He also said some of the supplied documents were falsified. He could not recall the 2017 case, but confirmed he ran the company.

Bloxham would not provide proof of his claims as he said the matter was before the courts.

The claims were denied by Cross, who said the time to appeal the tribunal decision had lapsed and he had heard nothing from the tribunal or lawyers.