JP Morgan Chase Bank NA v Lewis

[2014] NZCA 81

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA587/2013
[2014] NZCA 81

BETWEEN	JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA Applicant
AND	ROBERT LEWIS Respondent

Hearing:	17 March 2014
Court:	Stevens, White and French JJ
Counsel:	R L Towner for Applicant M W O’Brien and B Nicholson for Respondent
Judgment:	21 March 2014 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted on the following questions of law.

Was the decision of the Employment Court wrong in law in holding that:

(a)the Employment Court had jurisdiction to hear a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority pursuant to ss 179(1) and 187(1) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 in circumstances where the determination related to a claim about an alleged breach of a settlement agreement whereas the claim before the Employment Court was based on an alleged variation to the employment agreement;

(b)it was arguable that the Employment Court has jurisdiction to award damages for breach of a settlement agreement; and

(c)the written agreement dated 10 March 2010 was capable of being characterised either wholly or in part as a variation to an employment agreement.

BCosts on the application for leave to appeal are reserved.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French J)

1. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA applies under s 214 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 for leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Employment Court.  In the decision, the Employment Court declined to strike out a claim for damages brought by Mr Lewis against the Bank.[1]

   [1]Lewis v JPMorgan Chase Bank NA [2013] NZEmpC 148.

2. We are satisfied that leave should be granted to submit the following questions of law to this Court for determination.

   Was the decision of the Employment Court wrong in law in holding that:

   (a)the Employment Court had jurisdiction to hear a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority pursuant to ss 179(1) and 187(1) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 in circumstances where the determination related to a claim about an alleged breach of a settlement agreement whereas the claim before the Employment Court was based on an alleged variation to the employment agreement;

   (b)it was arguable that the Employment Court has jurisdiction to award damages for breach of a settlement agreement; and

   (c)the written agreement dated 10 March 2010 was capable of being characterised either wholly or in part as a variation to an employment agreement.

3. These questions are in our view of general and public importance.  Question (a) concerns the correctness of the Employment Court’s interpretation of the words “a matter” in s 179(1) as they relate to challenges to determinations of the Employment Relations Authority.  As to question (b), there is conflicting Employment Court authority on whether settlement agreements are enforceable in that Court.  Question (c) potentially affects many agreements similar to the one entered into by the parties in this case.

4. We are mindful of the fact that the decision at issue is an interlocutory decision.  This often raises a concern that an appeal may be premature and that consideration of the merits of the proposed appeal points should await the substantive decision.  However, we are satisfied those concerns do not arise in this case.  The legal issues will largely turn on a consideration of documentary material and are not dependent on factual findings yet to be made.  They can be satisfactorily resolved on appeal now.

5. As regards costs on the application for leave, we consider the appropriate course of action is for these to be reserved.

Solicitors:
Bell Gully, Auckland for Applicant
Kensington Swan, Auckland for Respondent