Mutonhori v Wairoa District Council - [2025] NZCA 595

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA218/2025
[2025] NZCA 595

BETWEEN	SIMON MUTONHORI Applicant
AND	WAIROA DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent

Court:	Courtney and Collins JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person C A W McGuinness for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	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…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mutonhori v Wairoa District Council and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZCA 595
Decision Date: 13 November 2025 at 9.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand dismissed an application for leave to appeal brought by Simon Mutonhori against the Wairoa District Council. Mutonhori sought leave to appeal a judgment of the Employment Court that upheld his dismissal from his position as Group Manager, Planning and Regulatory Services at the Wairoa District Council. The dismissal was due to his failure to complete a fringe benefit tax form concerning his use of a council pool car for personal purposes, his attitude towards an accreditation assessment of the council's Small Building Control Authority, and his response to issues raised by the council.

The legal issues the Court of Appeal had to decide were whether the Employment Court erred in its assessment under section 103A of the Employment Relations Act, in its consideration of the legal tests of predetermination and bias, and whether it made findings not reasonably available to it on the evidence before the Court. Mutonhori argued that the Employment Court failed to assess all relevant circumstances to both his suspension and his dismissal. However, the Court of Appeal found that the proposed questions of law were not seriously arguable and did not raise issues of general or public importance. The Court also found that Mutonhori's grievances with the Employment Court's factual findings were case specific and lacked merit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered Mutonhori to pay the respondent costs for a standard application on a band A basis with usual disbursements.

Orders