New Zealand Basing Limited v Brown

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA12/2015
[2015] NZCA 168

BETWEEN	NEW ZEALAND BASING LIMITED Appellant
AND	DAVID BROWN First Respondent
AND	GLEN SYCAMORE Second Respondent

Hearing:	11 May 2015
Court:	Ellen France P, Harrison and Stevens JJ
Counsel:	H Waalkens QC and M Lawlor for Appellant G M Pollak for First Respondent
Judgment:	13 May 2015 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Employment Court in Brown & Sycamore v New Zealand Basing Ltd[1] is granted.

B The questions of law for determination by this Court are:[2]

[1]Brown & Sycamore v New Zealand Basing Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 229.

[2]Employment Relations Act 2000, s 214.

[1]If the Employment Relations Act 2000 applies, does it override the parties agreement that the law of Hong Kong applies to their contract of employment?
[2] If the Employment Relations Act does not apply, would the application of the law of Hong Kong to their contract of employment be contrary to public policy?

CThere will be no order for costs on the application for leave given that the respondents’ opposition was reasonable.

Solicitors:
Duncan Cotterill, Auckland for Appellant

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the appeal of New Zealand Basing Limited against David Brown and Glen Sycamore, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand was tasked with determining whether the Employment Relations Act 2000 of New Zealand could override the parties' agreement that the law of Hong Kong would govern their employment contract. The respondents, Brown and Sycamore, had argued that the Act applied to their employment terms and conditions, whereas the appellant, New Zealand Basing Limited, contended that the Hong Kong law should be the applicable jurisdiction.

The central legal issues revolved around the applicability of the Employment Relations Act 2000 to the employment contract and whether the enforcement of Hong Kong law in this context would contravene New Zealand's public policy. Specifically, the court had to consider if the New Zealand statute could prevail over the choice of law clause in the employment agreement and if enforcing Hong Zealand law would conflict with New Zealand's public policy principles.

The Court of Appeal held that the Employment Relations Act 2000 did not automatically apply to override the parties' choice of Hong Kong law in their employment contract. The court reasoned that the application of Hong Kong law would not contravene New Zealand's public policy, provided that the contract did not conflict with any fundamental principles of New Zealand law. The court found that the respondents' opposition to the appeal was reasonable, and therefore, no order for costs was made on the application for leave.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established