Oceana Gold (New Zealand) v Jinkinson

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA536/2010
[2010] NZCA 581
BETWEENOCEANA GOLD (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED

Applicant

ANDTRACEY JINKINSON

Respondent

Hearing:30 November 2010

Court:Chambers, Randerson and Stevens JJ
Counsel:L K Brook for Applicant

R M Kelly and K J Jarvis for Respondent

Judgment:2 December 2010 at 4 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is granted on the following questions of law:
(1)Did the Employment Court err in failing to take into account all relevant considerations when assessing reimbursement for lost remuneration under ss 123 and 128 of the Employment Relations Act 2000?
(2)Did the Employment Court err in taking into account as a factor in assessing the quantum of reimbursement the matters referred to in [79] of that Court’s reasons for judgment?

BCosts on the application for leave are reserved.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Chambers J)

[1]        We have decided leave should be granted on the two questions identified by Ms Brook for Oceana Gold (New Zealand) Limited, the applicant. We do not give reasons, in accordance with r 27(2) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.
[2]        Ms Kelly, for Tracey Jinkinson, the respondent, raised the question whether security for costs in respect of the application for leave had been paid, as seemingly required by reg 69 of the Employment Court Regulations 2000. Notwithstanding that regulation, security for costs does not have to be paid on an application for leave to appeal under s 214 of the Employment Relations Act: see this Court’s discussion in Kidd v Equity Realty (1995) Ltd.[1]
[1]     Kidd v Equity Realty (1995) Ltd [2008] NZCA 545, (2008) 6 NZELR 291 at [4]-[12].
[3]        Once Oceana Gold files its appeal, it will have to provide security for costs in accordance with r 35 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules.
Solicitors:
Anderson Lloyd, Dunedin, for Applicant
Wilkinson Adams, Dunedin, for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Oceana Gold (New Zealand) Limited v Tracey Jinkinson, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand was tasked with determining whether the Employment Court had made any errors in its assessment of reimbursement for lost remuneration under sections 123 and 128 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. The dispute arose from the Employment Court's decision to consider certain factors in its assessment of the quantum of reimbursement, which Oceana Gold argued was inappropriate. The appeal sought to clarify whether the Employment Court had erred in its consideration of these factors and whether it had failed to take into account all relevant considerations in its assessment.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were twofold. Firstly, whether the Employment Court had correctly identified and applied all relevant considerations when determining the reimbursement amount. Secondly, whether the Employment Court had appropriately assessed the quantum of reimbursement by considering the factors outlined in paragraph [79] of the Employment Court's judgment. The Court of Appeal had to determine if the Employment Court's approach was consistent with the statutory provisions and judicial precedents.

In granting the application for leave to appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the questions posed were significant enough to warrant further judicial consideration. The Court determined that the Employment Court's consideration of the factors in question was indeed a matter that needed to be reviewed in light of the statutory framework and judicial authority. The Court did not provide detailed reasons for its decision, in accordance with the relevant rules. However, the Court did address the procedural requirement of security for costs, clarifying that while security was not necessary for the application for leave, it would be required once the appeal was filed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established