Grace Team Accounting Limited v Brake

[2013] NZCA 613

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA368/2013
[2013] NZCA 613

BETWEEN	GRACE TEAM ACCOUNTING LIMITED Applicant
AND	JUDITH BRAKE Respondent

Court:

Harrison, Stevens and White JJ

Counsel:

P M Muir for the Applicant
J M Brake in person

Judgment:

(On the papers)

4 December 2013 at 3.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is granted on the following questions of law:

(a)Did the Employment Court apply the correct test under s 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 for justification of dismissals on the grounds of redundancy?

(b)Did the Employment Court apply the correct principles when exercising its discretion to award remedies to the respondent?

BCosts on the application are reserved.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by White J)

1. With the agreement of the parties, we have determined on the papers this application for leave to appeal under s 214 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 against a decision of the Employment Court.[1]

   [1]Brake v Grace Team Accounting Ltd [2013] NZEmpC 81.

2. We are satisfied that the proposed appeal involves questions of law of public importance relating to the interpretation and application of the Employment Relations Act, namely:

   (a)Did the Employment Court apply the correct test under s 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 for justification of dismissals on the grounds of redundancy?

   (b)Did the Employment Court apply the correct principles when exercising its discretion to award remedies to the respondent?

3. These questions are based on those suggested by Ms Muir in her memorandum dated 14 November 2013.  We have not included the latter part of her suggested question (a) or her question (b) as we consider that they are covered by question (a) as formulated above.

4. The matters raised by Mrs Brake in her memorandum of 7 August 2013 in opposition to the application for leave to appeal may be raised by her at the hearing of the appeal itself.

5. As Mrs Brake is not represented by counsel, we are also satisfied that this is a case where counsel should be appointed to make both written and oral submissions assisting the Court on these questions of law.  For this purpose we direct the Registrar of this Court to appoint Mr Peter Cranney of Wellington as counsel assisting and to make appropriate arrangements with him for the payment of his fee.

6. As we have not heard from the parties on the question of costs on this application, costs are reserved.

Solicitors:
Simpson Grierson, Auckland for Applicant