Pick Hawke's Bay Incorporated v Soapi

[2025] NZCA 611

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA627/2025
 [2025] NZCA 611

BETWEEN	PICK HAWKE’S BAY INCORPORATED Appellant
AND	LYN SOAPI First Respondent
AND	DANNY LAU Second Respondent
AND	MARY LAU Third Respondent

Court:	French P and Palmer J
Counsel:	A S Butler KC for Appellant T P Oldfield for Respondents
Judgment: (On the papers)	21 November 2025 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is granted in respect of the following questions of law:

(a)Did the Employment Court err in holding that wage deductions for costs approved under the Recognised Seasonal Employer Scheme and which were compliant with the requirements of the Wages Protection Act 1983 are nevertheless unlawful if they have the effect of reducing an employee’s wages below the minimum wage under the Minimum Wage Act 1983?

(b)Did the Employment Court err in its interpretation of s 7 of the Minimum Wage Act 1983 in holding that the Agreement to Recruit Process did not constitute a mechanism for fixing the cash value of accommodation for the purposes of s 7?

B        There is no award of costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French P)

1. Pick Hawke’s Bay Inc (Pick Hawke’s Bay) has applied for leave under s 214 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 to appeal a decision of the Employment Court.[1]  The decision concerned a wages dispute under the Recognised Seasonal Employer Scheme (RSE Scheme).  The application is opposed by the respondents who are three former RSE workers from the Solomon Islands and who worked for Pick Hawke’s Bay.

   [1]Soapi v Pick Hawke’s Bay Inc [2025] NZEmpC 208.

2. After applying the relevant criteria for leave under s 214,[2] we are satisfied that leave should be granted in respect of the following two questions of law:

   (a)Did the Employment Court err in holding that wage deductions for costs approved under the Recognised Seasonal Employer Scheme and which were compliant with the requirements of the Wages Protection Act 1983 are nevertheless unlawful if they have the effect of reducing an employee’s wages below the minimum wage under the Minimum Wage Act 1983?

(b)Did the Employment Court err in its interpretation of s 7 of the Minimum Wage Act 1983 in holding that the Agreement to Recruit Process did not constitute a mechanism for fixing the cash value of accommodation for the purposes of s 7?

[2]This Court may grant leave if the 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 for decision.  The question of law must be seriously arguable.  See Employment Relations Act 2000, s 214(1) and (3); and New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union Inc v Fire and Emergency New Zealand [2021] NZCA 60, [2021] ERNZ 54 at [20].

1. We decline to grant leave in relation to the other proposed questions advanced by Pick Hawke’s Bay.

2. Our reasons for declining leave in respect of these other questions is that we considered one of them (a question regarding how the cash value of accommodation can be fixed by an employment agreement for the purposes of s 7 of the Minimum Wage Act) was in a substance a question about the interpretation of an employment agreement which is outside the scope of this Court’s jurisdiction; another (relating to Pick Hawke’s Bay’s unsuccessful counterclaim) was in substance a challenge to a factual finding and did not raise a question of law; and a third question was premised on the basis that the respondents consented to deductions which the Full Court held as a matter of fact that they did not.

3. Finally, we note the respondents’ request that if we were to grant leave, then it should be subject to a condition that costs should not be awarded against them due to impecuniosity.[3]  As regards the application for leave, Pick Hawke’s Bay did not succeed in respect of all its proposed questions and we therefore do not make any award of costs.  As regards costs on the substantive appeal, our preference is not to bind the panel that will hear the appeal.

Outcome

[3]Pursuant to Employment Relations Act, s 214(4).

1. The application for leave to appeal under s 214 of the Employment Relations Act is granted in respect of the following questions of law:

   (a)Did the Employment Court err in holding that wage deductions for costs approved under the Recognised Seasonal Employer Scheme and which were compliant with the requirements of the Wages Protection Act 1983 are nevertheless unlawful if they have the effect of reducing an employee’s wages below the minimum wage under the Minimum Wage Act 1983?

(b)Did the Employment Court err in its interpretation of s 7 of the Minimum Wage Act 1983 in holding that the Agreement to Recruit Process did not constitute a mechanism for fixing the cash value of accommodation for the purposes of s 7?

1. We make no award of costs in respect of the application for leave to appeal.

Solicitors:
Brown & Bates, Napier for Appellant
Smith Dunn, Auckland for Respondents