Hairland Holdings Ltd v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 62/2025
[2025] NZSC 129

BETWEEN	HAIRLAND HOLDINGS LIMITED Applicant
AND	CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT Respondent

Court:	Ellen France, Williams and Kós JJ
Counsel:	T P Cleary and P H Fisher for Applicant K F Radich for Respondent
Judgment:	1 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (Chief Executive of Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment v Hairland Holdings Ltd [2025] NZCA 219).

BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal on the basis that the Employment Relations Authority does not have jurisdiction to hear an application, brought by a purported employer against the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the Labour Inspector and/or its workers, for a bare declaration that its workers are not employees under s 6(1) of the Employment Relations Act 2000.

___________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Clancy Fisher Oxner & Bryant, Tokoroa for Applicant
G R La Hood, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment | Hīkina Whakatutuki, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hairland Holdings Ltd brought an application against the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, seeking a declaration that its workers were not employees under the Employment Relations Act 2000. The dispute reached the Supreme Court of New Zealand, with Ellen France, Williams, and Kós JJ hearing the case. The primary issue before the court was whether the Employment Relations Authority had jurisdiction to hear such an application. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Court of Appeal was correct in allowing the appeal on the basis that the Authority lacks jurisdiction to hear a claim for a bare declaration regarding the employment status of workers.

The court examined the statutory framework governing employment relations and the role of the Employment Relations Authority. It considered whether the Authority's jurisdiction is limited to specific types of disputes and whether it extends to issuing bare declarations. The court also analysed relevant precedent and statutory language to ascertain the scope of the Authority's powers. The judgment highlighted the importance of distinguishing between the Authority's jurisdictional boundaries and the types of relief that can be granted.

The Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeal's decision was correct. The Authority does not have jurisdiction to hear an application for a bare declaration that workers are not employees, as this type of declaration falls outside the scope of the Authority's powers under the Employment Relations Act 2000. The court granted leave to appeal, affirming the Court of Appeal's reasoning on this jurisdictional issue. This decision reinforces the need for clear statutory interpretation regarding the types of applications the Employment Relations Authority can adjudicate.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established