Mutonhori v Wairoa District Council
[2025] NZCA 595
•13 November 2025 at 9.30 am
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA |
| CA218/2025 |
| BETWEEN | SIMON MUTONHORI |
| AND | WAIROA DISTRICT COUNCIL |
| Court: | Courtney and Collins JJ |
Counsel: | Applicant in person |
Judgment: | 13 November 2025 at 9.30 am |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
AThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs for a standard application on a band A basis with usual disbursements.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Collins J)
Introduction
Mr Mutonhori seeks leave to appeal a judgment of the Employment Court upholding his dismissal from his position as Group Manager, Planning and Regulatory Services at the Wairoa District Council (WDC).[1]
[1]Mutonhori v Wairoa District Council [2025] NZEmpC 44, (2025) 21 NZELR 511 [judgment under appeal].
Under s 214(1) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act) a party may appeal from the Employment Court to this Court on questions of law if this Court grants leave. Leave may only be granted if a proposed question of law is one that “by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted” to this Court.[2] As was explained in Bowen v National Australia Bank Ltd,[3] this Court will consider the circumstances of the case in assessing whether leave ought to be granted, including whether the question of law is seriously arguable.
Background
[2]Employment Relations Act 2000, s 214(3).
[3]Bowen v National Australia Bank Ltd [2025] NZCA 282 at [13], citing New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union Inc v Fire and Emergency New Zealand [2021] NZCA 60, [2021] ERNZ 54 at [20].
The reasons for Mr Mutonhori’s dismissal fall under three heads:[4]
(a)his failure to complete a fringe benefit tax form concerning his use of a WDC pool car for personal purposes;
(b)his attitude towards an accreditation assessment of WDC’s Small Building Control Authority; and
(c)his response to and/or a failure to address the issues that had been raised.
[4]Judgment under appeal, above n 1, at [6]–[45].
Mr Mutonhori claimed his dismissal did not meet the criteria for justified dismissal set out in s 103A of the Act. He also claimed he was unjustifiably disadvantaged by reason of the decisions of the WDC to first relieve him of some of his duties and then to suspend him prior to his dismissal.[5]
[5]At [2].
The Employment Relations Authority largely dismissed Mr Mutonhori’s complaints.[6] The Employment Court also dismissed his claims.[7]
Proposed questions of law
[6]See Mutonhori v Wairoa District Council [2023] NZERA Wellington 468, in which all of Mr Mutonhori’s claims were dismissed; and Mutonhori v Wairoa District Council [2023] NZERA Wellington 469, in which Mr Mutonhori was awarded three weeks wages for the time he was on an overseas trip, but his claims were otherwise dismissed.
[7]Judgment under appeal, above n 1.
Mr Mutonhori has formulated three proposed questions of law:
(a)Did the Employment Court err in its assessment under s 103A of the Employment Relations Act?
(b)Did the Employment Court err in its consideration of the legal tests of predetermination and bias?
(c)Did the Employment Court err by making findings not reasonably available to it on the evidence before the Court?
Applicant’s submissions
Mr Mutonhori submits the Employment Court failed to assess all relevant circumstances to both his suspension and his dismissal. In particular he says the Court erred:
(a)when it concluded that the decisions of the WDC were fair and reasonable when the WDC relieved him of some of his duties before suspending and then ultimately dismissing him;
(b)when it suggested that the removal of duties without consultation was a minor defect in the process that did not result in him being treated unfairly;
(c)when it concluded there was nothing unfair or unreasonable about the speed of the process followed by the WDC;
(d)when it concluded there was nothing unfair or unreasonable about the lack of any independent investigation;
(e)when it found nothing unreasonable or unfair about the disclosure of information to Mr Mutonhori; and
(f)when it said Mr Mutonhori’s behaviour affected other staff.
Respondent’s position
The WDC opposes leave to appeal being granted. It submits:
(a)the proposed questions of law are not seriously arguable.
(b)the proposed questions relate to the Employment Court’s factual findings and are not genuine questions of law; and
(c)the proposed questions do not raise issues of general or public importance or provide any other reason for leave to be granted.
Analysis
First proposed question of law
The first proposed question of law essentially amounts to a reiteration of Mr Mutonhori’s ongoing disagreement with the reasons why he was dismissed. There is no clear legal issue of general or public importance relating to the first proposed question of law that warrants the granting of leave.
Second proposed question of law
The Employment Court found that Mr Mutonhori’s allegations of predetermination and bias were not established on the evidence.[8] To the extent that Mr Mutonhori wishes to claim that the CEO of the WDC was conflicted, that argument is contrary to established authority.[9] As the CEO of the Mr Mutonhori’s employer, the CEO was entitled to consider the matter of Mr Mutonhori’s dismissal.
[8]At [90]–[91].
[9]See NZ Tramways etc IUOW v Auckland Regional Council [1992] 2 ERNZ 883 at 891.
Mr Mutonhori has not demonstrated to any meaningful degree how the Employment Court misdirected itself in relation to the law on predetermination and bias.
Third proposed question of law
It is well established that a conclusion of a fact-finding body can sometimes be so insupportable and untenable as to amount to an error of law.[10]
[10]Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] NZSC 34, [2005] 3 NZLR 721 at [26].
In our assessment, Mr Mutonhori’s various grievances with the Employment Court’s factual findings are case specific. Furthermore, the grievances lack merit when measured against the observations of the Supreme Court in Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd.[11]
Conclusion
[11]At [27]–[28].
Nothing put forward by Mr Mutonhori warrants leave being granted.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay the respondent costs for a standard application on a band A basis with usual disbursements.
0