C v Air Nelson Limited

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 59/2010
[2010] NZSC 110
BETWEENC
Applicant

ANDAIR NELSON LIMITED
Respondent

Court:Blanchard, Tipping and McGrath JJ
Counsel:J Haigh QC for Applicant
C H Toogood QC and K M Thompson for Respondent

Judgment:30 August 2010

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The interim order for suppression of the applicant’s name made by the Court of Appeal on 23 June 2010 is to continue in force until 5pm on 7 September 2010.

REASONS
[1] By a majority the Court of Appeal refused to grant the applicant leave to appeal from a decision of the Employment Court declining to suppress his name pending determination of his claim against the respondent. The applicant has now applied for leave to appeal directly from the Employment Court to this Court on the same issue. This Court has jurisdiction to grant such an application but, because to do so would effectively negate this Court’s inability to give leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal’s refusal to grant leave,[1] the applicant must show “extremely compelling circumstances” justifying the grant of leave.[2] None exist here. No point of law or principle of general or public importance is involved. Nor can the miscarriage ground be invoked. For these reasons the application for leave must be dismissed.
[1]See s 7(b) of the Supreme Court Act 2003.
[2]White v Auckland District Health Board [2007] NZSC 64, (2007) 18 PRNZ 698 at [5] and [6].
[2] But the interim order for suppression of the applicant’s name made by the Court of Appeal on 23 June 2010 should be continued until 5pm on 7 September 2010. This will enable the applicant to apply to the Employment Court again, if so advised, should the present state of the case in that Court be thought to justify a suppression order. Our giving the applicant this opportunity does not imply any view of the merits of such an application.
Solicitors:
NZALPA, Auckland for Applicant
Air New Zealand Limited, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the applicant sought leave to appeal against the refusal by the Court of Appeal to grant leave to appeal a decision by the Employment Court that declined to suppress the applicant's name pending determination of his claim against Air Nelson Limited. The applicant had earlier applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal, which was refused. The case involved an application for suppression of the applicant's identity during the employment dispute, and the applicant was dissatisfied with the outcome of both the Employment Court and the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the applicant could appeal directly to it from the Employment Court and, if not, whether the interim suppression order made by the Court of Appeal should be continued.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether it had jurisdiction to hear the applicant's appeal directly from the Employment Court and, if so, whether there were "extremely compelling circumstances" that warranted granting leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal's decision. The Court considered whether any point of law of general or public importance was involved, or if there were grounds for a miscarriage of justice that would justify the grant of leave. The Court also needed to determine whether the interim suppression order should be extended to give the applicant an opportunity to reapply to the Employment Court.

The Supreme Court held that while it had jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal directly from the Employment Court, the applicant needed to demonstrate "extremely compelling circumstances" to warrant such leave. The Court found that no such circumstances existed in this case, as neither a point of law of general or public importance was involved, nor were there grounds for a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. However, the Court did extend the interim suppression order made by the Court of Appeal until 5pm on 7 September 2010, to allow the applicant to apply again to the Employment Court if the situation warranted it. The extension was granted without implying any view on the merits of such an application.

The final orders of the Supreme Court were that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the interim suppression order made by the Court of Appeal on 23 June 2010 was to continue in force until 5pm on 7 September 2010. This decision allowed the applicant to reapply to the Employment Court if the circumstances of the case changed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established