Lawton v Stock - [2022] NZCA 339

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA254/2022
[2022] NZCA 339

BETWEEN	REEGAN PAORA LAWTON Applicant
AND	ORMOND BRIAN STOCK Respondent

Court:	Dobson and Simon France JJ
Counsel:	P A McBride and S P Radcliffe for Applicant K T Dalziel for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	27 July 2022 at 3.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is declined.
BThe applicant must pay the respondent costs for a standard application on a band A basis and usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Dobson J)

The applicant (Mr Lawton) seeks leave to bring an appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the Employment Court addressing admissibility of a letter sent by solicitors for the respondent (Mr Stock) that was endorsed “without prejudice save as to costs”. Judge Holden ruled the letter admissible on the issue of a claim by Mr Stock for costs, admitting the letter in a redacted form.[1]
[1]Lawton v Steel Pencil Holdings Ltd (in liq) [2022] NZEmpC 72.
Section 214 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 enables a party to proceedings before the Employment Court to seek leave to appeal to this Court on questions of law. This Court may grant leave if the question of law involved is one that, by reason of general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision.
Mr Stock opposes leave on grounds that the proposed appeal could not raise a question of law that is capable of genuine and serious argument, involving either a public or private interest of sufficient importance to outweigh the costs and delay of an appeal. Further, Mr Stock contends that the feature of the interlocutory judgment challenged in essence raises factual findings rather than a question of law. On 22 July 2022 counsel for Mr Lawton filed submissions in reply to those on behalf of Mr Stock. They do not add to the matters in issue.
The relevant issue arose in the course of an application on behalf of Mr Stock for costs following a substantive Employment Court judgment. In support of his application, Mr Stock’s counsel attached a letter sent by Mr Stock’s solicitor to the solicitor for Mr Lawton containing an offer to settle the dispute between them. Mr Lawton had objected to the admissibility of the letter and in seeking a ruling, counsel filed a joint memorandum which attached a redacted version of the offer letter, omitting the detail of the offer that had previously been relayed on Mr Stock’s behalf.
By way of background, the parties had a without prejudice discussion during which Mr Stock made a settlement offer. The letter in question was written a week later expressly noting that the parties had discussed settlement orally and indicating that the purpose of the letter was to commit Mr Stock’s offer to writing. It added that what had been offered a week earlier was now repeated,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Lawton v Stock

Details

AGLC: Lawton v Stock [2022] NZCA 339
Case: [2022] NZCA 339
Decision Date: 27 July 2022 at 3.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand was asked to decide on an application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the Employment Court. The applicant, Regan Paora Lawton, sought to challenge a ruling by Judge Holden that allowed a letter sent by Ormond Brian Stock's solicitors to be admitted in evidence. The letter was sent on a "without prejudice save as to costs" basis and contained an offer to settle the dispute between the parties. The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Court of Appeal should grant leave for Mr Lawton to appeal the Employment Court's decision, considering the general or public importance of the question of law involved. Mr Stock opposed the application on the grounds that the proposed appeal could not raise a question of law that was capable of genuine and serious argument.

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the application for leave to appeal, held that the ruling of the Employment Court did not raise a question of law that was capable of bona fide argument warranting leave for an appeal. The Court found that the letter in question was admissible as a Calderbank offer and that it did not contain any statements attributed to Mr Lawton from the without prejudice discussion. The Court further noted that the redaction process for the letter was a distraction and did not give rise to a question of law worthy of argument on appeal. The Court also found that Mr Stock's resort to the equity and good conscience jurisdiction of the Employment Court did not raise a question of law warranting leave. The Court of Appeal accordingly dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered Mr Lawton to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders