Sawyer v Vice-Chancellor of Victoria University of Wellington

The applicant, Ms Sawyer, sought leave to appeal against two decisions of the Employment Court. The first concerned the validity of a settlement agreement entered into with her former employer, Victoria University of Wellington. The second concerned the Employment Court’s refusal to grant her an extension of time to appeal against a compliance order granted against her. This Court must not grant leave unless the appeal raises a question of law that, due to its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to this Court for decision.

In the first appeal, Ms Sawyer claimed that the Settlement Agreement was invalid because she was under duress when she signed it. She also claimed that the Agreement was illegal, and that the person who signed it on behalf of Victoria University did not have authority to do so. The Employment Court rejected all of these claims. In the second appeal, Ms Sawyer sought an extension of time to appeal against a compliance order granted against her. The Employment Court refused the extension of time on the basis that Ms Sawyer had delayed for too long, that Victoria University would be prejudiced if the Compliance Order were to be re‑opened, and that the substantive merits of the proposed appeal were weak.

In declining leave to appeal, the Court noted that the proposed appeal involved questions of fact rather than law. The Court rejected Ms Sawyer’s argument that the Employment Court reversed the burden of proof, and that the settlement agreement was illegal. The Court also accepted that Ms Sawyer’s concerns about the process in the Employment Court were not amenable to a grant of leave to appeal. As regards the second appeal, the Court agreed that there may have been a breach of privilege, but noted that the Judge considered other factors when declining to grant the extension of time. The Court concluded that the proposed appeals were not ones that, due to their general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to this Court for decision.

The application for leave to appeal in CA409/2018 is declined. The application for leave to appeal in CA410/2018 is declined. The applicant must pay the respondent one set of costs for a standard application on a band A basis and usual disbursements.