Brill v Labour Inspector (MacRury)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA701/2015
[2016] NZCA 262

BETWEEN	BARRY EDWARD BRILL Applicant
AND	LABOUR INSPECTOR (MELISSA ANN MACRURY) Respondent

Court:

Randerson, Stevens and Miller JJ

Counsel:

Appellant (in person)
S McKechnie for Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)

15 June 2016 at 4.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A We grant leave to appeal from the Employment Court on the following question:
In terms of s 234(2) of the Employment Relations Act 2000, what must the Labour Inspector prove to establish that any officer, director, or agent of the company has directed or authorised the default in payment of the minimum wages or holiday pay or both?

B The application for an extension of time is granted.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Miller J)

We need not give reasons for granting leave to appeal from the Employment Court.[1] So far as the extension of time is concerned, there is force in the respondent’s contention that the delay is insufficiently explained, but the appeal raises an important and arguable question and the delay is not so extensive as to justify refusing an extension in the circumstances.
[1]Labour Inspector (Melissa Ann MacRury) v Cypress Villas Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 157.

Solicitors:
Crown Law, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Barry Edward Brill, the appellant, filed an appeal against the Labour Inspector (Melissa Ann MacRury), the respondent, in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The central issue in this case was the legal requirement for the Labour Inspector to prove that any officer, director, or agent of a company had directed or authorised the default in payment of minimum wages or holiday pay, or both. This appeal stemmed from a decision made by the Employment Court, and the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal to address a specific statutory question.

The legal issue before the Court of Appeal was determining the evidentiary burden on the Labour Inspector to establish that an officer, director, or agent of the company had directed or authorised the default in payment. The Court was required to interpret Section 234(2) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and clarify what proof the Labour Inspector needed to provide to substantiate such claims.

The Court of Appeal, in its judgment, noted that while the delay in filing the appeal was not adequately explained, the question raised was both significant and arguable. The Court granted the appellant leave to appeal and also approved an extension of time for filing the appeal. The Court concluded that the delay was not so extensive as to warrant a refusal of the extension, given the importance of the legal question at hand. The Court also acknowledged that the respondent's contention regarding the insufficient explanation for the delay had some merit.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established