Saad v McIvor

[2016] NZCA 314

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA659/2015
CA674/2015
[2016] NZCA 314

BETWEEN	SAMIR SAAD Applicant
AND	GARY MCIVOR Respondent

Hearing:	4 July 2016
Court:	Harrison, French and Cooper JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person and M Saad as McKenzie Friend Respondent in person and M Moncur as McKenzie Friend
Judgment:	7 July 2016 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The applications for an extension of time to seek leave under s 214 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 are declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French J)

1. Mr Saad seeks leave to appeal two decisions of the Employment Court under s 214 of the Employment Relations Act 2000.

2. In the first decision Chief Judge Colgan found that Mr Saad had constructively dismissed the respondent, Mr McIvor, and ordered Mr Saad to pay loss of remuneration, compensation and a penalty.[1]  In the second decision the Judge awarded costs in favour of Mr McIvor in relation to both the Employment Court proceeding and an earlier proceeding in the Employment Relations Authority.[2]

   [1]McIvor v Saad [2015] NZEmpC 145.

   [2]McIvor v Saad [2015] NZEmpC 174.

3. The applications for leave to appeal in respect of both decisions were filed out of time, requiring applications for an extension of time.[3]

   [3]Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 29A.

4. The period of delay in filing the respective applications for leave was not significant and we accept there was some confusion about the time limits.  Mr Saad is self-represented.

5. However, the applications suffer from a more fundamental defect and that is that none of the proposed grounds of appeal satisfies the prerequisites for granting leave under s 214.  None raises questions of law and none raises questions of general or public importance.  All the proposed grounds are very much case-specific.  They relate to factual findings and the Chief Judge’s analysis of the evidence.

6. It follows that, even if the applications for leave had been filed in time, they would not have any prospect of success.

7. The applications for an extension of time are accordingly declined.