David Brown and Glen Sycamore v New Zealand Basing Limited

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 145/2016
[2017] NZSC 12

BETWEEN

DAVID BROWN
First Applicant

GLEN SYCAMORE
Second Applicant

AND

NEW ZEALAND BASING LIMITED
Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	G M Pollak and H I K White for Applicants A H Waalkens QC and M G Lawlor for Respondent
Judgment:	17 February 2017

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (New Zealand Basing Ltd v Brown [2016] NZCA 525, [2017] 2 NZLR 93).
BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that age discrimination provisions of the Employment Relations Act 2000 do not apply to the employment agreements between the applicants and the respondent.

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Garry Pollak & Co Limited, Auckland for Applicants
Duncan Cotterill, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard the case of David Brown and Glen Sycamore against New Zealand Basing Limited. The applicants sought to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal that had previously dismissed their claims of age discrimination under the Employment Relations Act 2000. The employment agreements in question were related to the applicants' dismissal from their positions with the respondent.

The legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal's interpretation of the age discrimination provisions of the Employment Relations Act 2000 was correct, specifically whether these provisions applied to the applicants' employment agreements. The applicants argued that the age discrimination provisions did apply to their employment agreements, while the respondent maintained that the Court of Appeal's interpretation was correct.

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal's interpretation of the age discrimination provisions was correct and that these provisions did not apply to the applicants' employment agreements. The Court found that the applicants' employment agreements were not covered by the age discrimination provisions, as they did not fall within the definition of "employment agreement" under the Act. The Court also noted that the applicants' dismissals were not based on their age, but rather on performance issues and operational requirements of the respondent's business.

As a result of the Supreme Court's decision, the applicants' appeal was dismissed, and the Court of Appeal's decision was upheld. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal but did not allow the appeal itself, thereby confirming the earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established