Attorney-General v Courage

[2025] NZCA 311

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA850/2024
 [2025] NZCA 311

BETWEEN	ATTORNEY-GENERAL SUED ON BEHALF OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT, LABOUR INSPECTORATE Applicant
AND	HOSEA COURAGE, DANIEL PILGRIM AND LEVI COURAGE First Respondents
AND	SERENITY PILGRIM, ANNA COURAGE, ROSE STANDTRUE, CRYSTAL LOYAL, PEARL VALOR AND VIRGINIA COURAGE Second Respondents
AND	HOWARD TEMPLE, FERVENT STEDFAST, ENOCH UPRIGHT, SAMUEL VALOR, FAITHFUL PILGRIM, NOAH HOPEFUL AND STEPHEN STANDFAST Third Respondents
AND	FOREST GOLD HONEY LIMITED Fourth Respondent

Court:	Katz and Collins JJ
Counsel:	A Boadita-Cormican, A J Wicks and R M McConnell for Applicant B P Henry for First and Second Respondents P G Skelton KC and C J Pearce for Third and Fourth Respondents R A Kirkness as counsel to assist the court
Judgment: (On the papers)	11 July 2025 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A        The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B        Costs are reserved.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Collins J)

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of the Employment Court refusing to strike out a claim for breach of statutory duty against the Labour Inspector.[1] 

   [1]Courage v Attorney-General (No 16) [2024] NZEmpC 247.

2. The application for leave to appeal is granted.

3. The questions of law to be determined on appeal are summarised as follows:

   (a)Does a High Court claim for breach of statutory duty encroach upon the jurisdiction of the Employment Court to judicially review the exercise of statutory powers?[2]

   (b)Did the Employment Court err in concluding that, prior to commencing a claim for breach of statutory duty in the High Court, a party must first bring a judicial review application in the Employment Court to determine the nature and extent of the statutory powers of the Labour Inspector?

   (c)Did the Employment Court err in concluding that a claim in tort may be repleaded as an application for judicial review and thus fall within the Employment Court’s jurisdiction?

   [2]As contained in ss 187(1)(j) and 194 of the Employment Relations Act 2000.

4. Costs are reserved. 

Solicitors:

Crown Law Office | Te Tari Ture o te Karauna, Wellington for Applicant

Shanahans Law, Auckland for First and Second Respondents
Duncan Cotterill, Christchurch for Third and Fourth Respondents