Pilgrim v Temple - [2024] NZSC 90

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 52/2024
[2024] NZSC 90

BETWEEN	SERENITY PILGRIM, ANNA COURAGE, ROSE STANDTRUE, CRYSTAL LOYAL, PEARL VALOR AND VIRGINIA COURAGE Applicants
AND	HOWARD TEMPLE, SAMUEL VALOR, FAITHFUL PILGRIM, NOAH HOPEFUL AND STEPHEN STANDFAST Respondents

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Kós JJ
Counsel:	B P Henry, D J Gates and S T Patterson for Applicants P G Skelton KC and C B Pearce for Respondents
Judgment:	5 August 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

BThe applicants must pay the respondents costs of $2,500.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicants were members of what is known as the Gloriavale Community, a religious community on the West Coast of the South Island. They sought a declaration under s 6 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA) that they had been employees of the respondents during the time they lived there and worked at cooking, cleaning and doing laundry for the community.
The Employment Court held that while neither party regarded themselves as being in an employment relationship at the relevant time, s 6 of the Act, “construed purposively, was intended to apply to the relationships at issue in this case”.[1] The Court held that although the applicants did not expect to be paid, they nonetheless worked for “hire or reward” within the meaning of s 6(1)(a). The “reward” was identified as the “necessities of life”, a “promise of spiritual redemption” and permission to stay in the Community.[2]
[1]Pilgrim v Temple [2023] NZEmpC 105, (2023) 19 NZELR 793 (Chief Judge Inglis) at [163].
[2]At [122] and [129].
The Court of Appeal granted the respondents leave to appeal on two questions of law:[3]
(a)Did the respondents work for hire or reward within the meaning of s 6(1)(a) of the ERA; and
(b)If not, were they volunteers for the purposes of s 6(1)(c) of the ERA?
[3]Temple v Pilgrim [2024] NZCA 147 (French and Collins JJ).
The applicants seek leave to appeal to this Court against the grant of leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. They contend the Court of Appeal has only a limited statutory jurisdiction to consider questions of law on appeal from the Employment Court. In particular, it lacks jurisdiction to grant leave on questions other than those in respect of which the dissatisfied party believes the judgment challenged was “wrong in law”; and any approved question must “go to the heart of the judgment” in the sense that it affected the outcome of the proceeding. Here the approved questions were not raised by the respondents but proposed by the Court, while having more relevance to potential future proceedings involving other groups than to this proceeding. The Court of Appeal therefore exceeded its statutory jurisdiction.

Our assessment

While it lies within the jurisdiction and constitutional function of this Court to review the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of its own statutory jurisdiction, the criteria for leave are not made out here.[4]…

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.

Continue reading Pilgrim v Temple

Details

AGLC: Pilgrim v Temple [2024] NZSC 90
Case: [2024] NZSC 90
Decision Date: 5 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Pilgrim v Temple, the applicants were former members of the Gloriavale Community, a religious group based on the West Coast of New Zealand's South Island. They sought a declaration under section 6 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 that they were employees of the respondents during their time in the community, where they performed tasks such as cooking, cleaning, and laundry. The Employment Court had previously held that the applicants were not employees, but the applicants appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal on two questions of law related to whether the applicants worked for hire or reward and whether they were volunteers. The applicants sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court regarding the Court of Appeal's grant of leave.

The Supreme Court considered whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal on questions not explicitly raised by the respondents and whether the approved questions were relevant to the proceeding. The Court found that the Court of Appeal had broad jurisdiction to grant leave under the Employment Relations Act and that the approved questions could affect the outcome of the proceeding. The Supreme Court also noted that the Court of Appeal had sought submissions on the reformulated questions and that there was no apparent error in its exercise of jurisdiction. The Court concluded that it was unnecessary to address the respondents' argument that leave to appeal should not run from a grant of leave below.

As a result, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of $2,500. This decision reinforces the broad jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to grant leave to appeal and highlights the importance of ensuring that approved questions are relevant to the proceeding.

Orders