Court: Elias CJ, Gault, Keith, Blanchard and Tipping JJ Counsel: M E Gould and T J Anderson for Appellant
P M Muir and L S Jenkins for Respondent L J Taylor and C P Chauvel for New Zealand Council of Trade Unions as First Intervener B A Corkill and S J Davies for Business New Zealand as Second Intervener
Judgment: 16 June 2005
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
A. The appeal is allowed.
B. The decision of the Employment Court is restored.
C. Costs in favour of the appellant against the respondent will be fixed by the Court following receipt of written submissions.
BRYSON V THREE FOOT SIX LIMITED SC CIV 24/2004 [16 June 2005]
REASONS
(Given by Blanchard J)
[1] Between 17 April 2000 and 28 September 2001 Mr Bryson did work for Three Foot Six Ltd in its miniatures unit which was filming special effects for the Lord of the Rings project. The issue before the Court is whether he did so as an employee or as an independent contractor. Only if he was an employee can he pursue his personal grievance claims against Three Foot Six under the Employment Relations Act 2000.
[2] The matter has been dealt with as a preliminary question. The Employment Relations Authority took the view that Mr Bryson was a contractor.1 Mr Bryson elected to have the matter heard de novo by the Employment Court. In a reserved judgment delivered on 14 October 2003, Judge Shaw held that Mr Bryson had been employed under a contract of service and so had been an employee.2 The Court of Appeal gave leave to appeal, saying that there was a qualifying question of law involved.3 By majority (William Young J and O’Regan J; McGrath J dissenting) it allowed the appeal of Three Foot Six and restored the determination of the Authority.4
The Employment Court’s decision
[3] Judge Shaw’s decision was expressed with commendable brevity. We adopt her description of the background facts:
[9] Mr Bryson has a 20-year history of model making as a hobby. He had worked for Weta Workshop in 1996 and 1997. In 1998 he was employed by Weta Workshops to make miniatures/models for the film The Lord of the Rings. He rejoined Weta Workshops model shop in February
2000 and continued working on The Lord of the Rings models.
[10] Weta Workshop has a close working relationship with Three Foot Six Limited (Three Foot Six). It is not unusual for staff to be seconded between the two companies. In 1999 Three Foot Six was established to administer the production of The Lord of the Rings. It had a miniatures unit
1 Determination No. WA1/03, 7 January 2003 (Mr Stapp).
2 [2003] 1 ERNZ 581.
3 CA215/03, 8 December 2003.
4 CA246/03, 12 November…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] NZSC 34
Case
[2005] NZSC 34
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, James Bryson appealed against the decision of the Employment Court, which found that he was an employee of Three Foot Six Ltd during his work on the Lord of the Rings project. The Court of Appeal had allowed the appeal of Three Foot Six, finding that Bryson was an independent contractor. The key issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Employment Court's finding that Bryson was an employee was correct. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had erred in law in allowing the appeal. The Court held that the Employment Court had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions and had not overlooked any relevant matters or taken account of some matter which was irrelevant to the proper application of the law. The Supreme Court allowed Bryson's appeal and restored the decision of the Employment Court, finding that he was an employee of Three Foot Six Ltd. Costs were to be fixed in favour of Bryson against Three Foot Six.