Sharma v Rodney Farm 'N' Machinery Limited

[2025] NZCA 610

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA256/2025
 [2025] NZCA 610

BETWEEN	ANANT KUMAR SHARMA Applicant
AND	RODNEY FARM ‘N’ MACHINERY LIMITED Respondent

Court:	French P and Palmer J
Counsel:	Applicant in person J A Hogg, director, for respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	21 November 2025 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French P)

1. Mr Sharma wishes to appeal a decision of the Employment Court.  In that decision Judge Holden reduced some of the remedies that had been granted to Mr Sharma by the Employment Relations Authority in personal grievance proceedings against the respondent, his former employer.[1]

   [1]Sharma v Rodney Farm ‘N’ Machinery Ltd [2025] NZEmpC 64; and Sharma v Rodney Farm ‘N’ Machinery Ltd [2023] NZERA Auckland 765.

2. An appeal to this Court from the Employment Court is not an appeal as of right.  Mr Sharma must first obtain leave to appeal.  By virtue of s 214 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, Mr Sharma is required to satisfy us that his proposed appeal raises a question of law that by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason ought to be submitted to this Court.[2] 

   [2]Employment Relations Act 2000, s 214(3).

3. The application for leave was filed out of time, but the respondent did not oppose an extension of time and this was duly granted by Ellis J.[3]

   [3]In a minute dated 2 July 2025.

4. The respondent does, however, oppose the application itself.

5. In our view, none of the questions Mr Sharma seeks to raise in his proposed appeal is of general or public importance.  While obviously important to him, they are entirely case specific.  Further, in so far as they qualify as errors of law, none are reasonably arguable.[4]  The Employment Court’s application of the relevant statutory provisions was orthodox and there was no discernible error in its consideration of the evidence.  An appeal to this Court under the Employment Relations Act cannot be used as a vehicle to re-litigate adverse factual findings.

   [4]See Bowen v National Australia Ltd [2025] NZCA 282 at [13]; and New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union Inc v Fire and Emergency New Zealand [2021] NZCA 60, [2021] ERNZ 54 at [20].

6. We note too that an additional question regarding this Court’s decision to allow the respondent company to be represented by its director for the purposes of the application for leave to appeal cannot logically be grounds for an appeal against the Employment Court’s decision.  If the proposed question was intended to relate to the fact the company was also represented by its director in the Employment Court, that would not be an issue warranting the granting of leave.  The Employment Relations Act expressly permits both employees and employers to be represented by lay people.[5]  Further it is not arguable, in any event, that the absence of legal counsel impacted on the Employment Court findings.

   [5]Employment Relations Act, s 236.

7. For completeness, we also record that, according to the respondent, one of the issues sought to be raised by Mr Sharma in this Court relating to KiwiSaver payments has been settled.  If that is correct, that would be another reason not to grant leave to appeal on that issue.  But even if it has not been settled, we would still have declined leave for the other reasons set out above.

Outcome

1. The application for leave to appeal is declined.