Anna Elizabeth Osborne v Worksafe New Zealand

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 23/2017
[2017] NZSC 90

BETWEEN

ANNA ELIZABETH OSBORNE AND SONYA LYNNE ROCKHOUSE
Applicants

AND

WORKSAFE NEW ZEALAND
First Respondent

DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON
Second Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, William Young and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	K N Hampton QC and S N Meikle for Applicants J C Holden and M J R Conway for First Respondent No appearance for Second Respondent
Judgment:	19 June 2017

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Osborne v Worksafe New Zealand [2017] NZCA 11).

BSubject to the qualification discussed at [1], the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal to that Court.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicants also sought leave to challenge the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the decision of Judge Farish in the District Court[1] was not unlawful by reason of the Judge’s failure to recuse herself.[2] This is an issue related to the particular circumstances of this case and does not meet the criteria for leave to appeal to this Court. The application for leave to appeal is refused on this point.
[1]Department of Labour v Whittall DC Christchurch CRI-2012-018-0821, 12 December 2013.
[2]Osborne v Worksafe New Zealand [2017] NZCA 11, [2017] 2 NZLR 513 (Kós P, Randerson and French JJ) at [99].

Solicitors:
S N Meikle, Wellington for Applicants
Crown Law Office, Wellington for First Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the case of Anna Elizabeth Osborne and Sonya Lynne Rockhouse versus Worksafe New Zealand was heard. The applicants sought leave to appeal against a decision made by the Court of Appeal, which had dismissed their appeal against a ruling by Judge Farish in the District Court. The case involved a dispute over a decision made by Worksafe New Zealand, the first respondent, which the applicants sought to challenge.

The legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal was correct in dismissing the applicants' appeal. The applicants argued that Judge Farish should have recused herself from the case due to a potential conflict of interest. The Court of Appeal had rejected this argument, and the applicants sought to challenge that decision. The Court was also asked to consider whether the applicants could challenge the Court of Appeal's conclusion that the District Court judge's failure to recuse herself was not unlawful.

The Supreme Court found that the applicants' appeal could be heard in part, as the Court of Appeal's decision was of sufficient importance to warrant consideration by the Supreme Court. However, the Court found that the applicants' argument regarding the District Court judge's failure to recuse herself did not meet the criteria for leave to appeal. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was refused on this point. The Court found that the Court of Appeal's decision was correct and that there was no error in law that warranted the Supreme Court's intervention.

The Supreme Court granted the applicants leave to appeal in part, subject to a qualification. The Court found that the Court of Appeal was correct in dismissing the applicants' appeal, and that there was no error in law that warranted the Supreme Court's intervention. The Court did not address the applicants' argument regarding the District Court judge's failure to recuse herself, as this did not meet the criteria for leave to appeal. No further orders were made by the Court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established