O'Hagan v Waitomo Adventures Limited - [2014] NZHC 905

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CIV-2013-470-602 [2014] NZHC 905

BETWEEN
BRENT O'HAGAN

Plaintiff

AND

WAITOMO ADVENTURES LIMITED Defendant

Hearing: 2 May 2014

Appearances:

Plaintiff in person
N J Edwards for Defendant

Judgment:

5 May 2014

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE BELL

This judgment was delivered by me on 5 May 2014 at 4:00pm
pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

...................................
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Whitfield Braun Ltd (Toby Braun/N J Edwards) Hamilton, for Defendant.
Copy for:
Brent O’Hagan, Te Kuiti 3910.

O'HAGAN v WAITOMO ADVENTURES LIMITED [2014] NZHC 905 [5 May 2014]

[1] Mr O’Hagan seeks a declaration that a judgment the defendant obtained against him in the Employment Court was obtained by fraud. He wants the judgment set aside. He has sued in this court. The question is whether this court can hear the proceeding.

[2] Mr O’Hagan had brought an unsuccessful constructive dismissal and unjustified disadvantage claim in the Employment Relations Authority. He then challenged the determination of the Authority under s 179 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. The Employment Court found against Mr O’Hagan and awarded Waitomo Adventures Ltd $84,089.17, most of it costs. Mr O’Hagan’s statement of claim says that Waitomo Adventures Ltd obtained the Employment Court judgment by fraud because its director, Mr Andreef, allegedly gave perjured evidence.

[3] At the first case management conference on 19 March 2014 I raised the jurisdiction issue and in my minute from that conference I recorded my doubts as to this court having jurisdiction. Both parties have filed memoranda in response. While the defendant did not lodge an appearance objecting to jurisdiction under r
5.49 of the High Court Rules, this is a decision as to jurisdiction under that rule, as if there had been an application under r 5.49(3) or (5).

[4] In my minute of 19 March 2014 I set out two broad grounds for doubting that

this court had jurisdiction to hear Mr O’Hagan’s claim:

(a) any proceeding to set aside a judgment on the grounds that it was fraudulently obtained should be brought in the original trial court; and

(b) this court does not have jurisdiction for litigation concerning employment relationship problems.

[5] For the first ground I relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in
Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Redcliffe Forestry Venture Ltd1 that indicated that the proceeding should be brought in the trial court. For the second I relied on

1 Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Redcliffe Forestry Venture Ltd [2012] NZSC 94, [2013] 1 NZLR 804.

provisions of the Employment Relations Act giving institutions established under that Act exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide employment relationship problems, in particular the Employment Court’s exclusive jurisdiction under s 187(3).

[6] In response to my minute, Mr O’Hagan noted this statement in the judgement of the Court of Appeal in Redcliffe Forestry Venture Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue:2

But it was an exception that needed to be alleged and proved…

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 O'Hagan v Waitomo Adventures Limited 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: [2014] NZHC 905
Decision Date: 5 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of O'Hagan v Waitomo Adventures Limited, the plaintiff, Mr O'Hagan, sought a declaration that a judgment obtained by the defendant, Waitomo Adventures Limited, in the Employment Court was procured by fraud. He sought to have the judgment set aside and brought the action in the High Court. The central issue before the court was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the proceeding. Mr O'Hagan contended that the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the proceeding on the basis that the Employment Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear a proceeding to set aside one of its judgments on the grounds that it was obtained by fraud.

The court examined the jurisdiction of the Employment Court under the Employment Relations Act and found that the Employment Court had the power to set aside a judgment if it was obtained by fraud. The court reasoned that the Employment Court's jurisdiction to hear challenges to determinations of the Employment Relations Authority under section 179 of the Act included the power to hear all matters ancillary to such a proceeding, including an action to set aside a judgment obtained by fraud. The court also noted that the Employment Court had the inherent power to prevent an abuse of its processes, which would include obtaining a judgment by fraud.

The court concluded that the proceeding was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Court and, therefore, the High Court could not hear it. The court found that any proceeding to set aside a judgment on the grounds that it was fraudulently obtained should be brought in the original trial court, which in this case was the Employment Court. The court dismissed the proceeding for want of jurisdiction and ordered costs in favour of the defendant.

Orders