Stumpmaster v Worksafe New Zealand

[2018] NZHC 2190

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2018-404-039

[2018] NZHC 2190

BETWEEN

STUMPMASTER

Appellant

AND

WORKSAFE NEW ZEALAND

Respondent

WHANGANGUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI 2017-483-000016

BETWEEN

THE TASMAN TANNING COMPANY
Appellant

AND

WORKSAFE NEW ZEALAND

Respondent

INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI 2018-425-7

BETWEEN

NIAGARA SAWMILLING COMPANY LIMITED

Appellant

AND

WORKSAFE NEW ZEALAND

Respondent

Hearing: On Papers

STUMPMASTER v WORKSAFE NEW ZEALAND [2018] NZHC 2190 [24 August 2018]

Counsel:

Coram:

T J Mackenzie for Stumpmaster

G Gallaway and J Lill for The Tasman Tanning Co and Niagara Sawmilling Co Ltd

D La Hood, S Petricevic and T G Bain for WorkSafe NZ

Venning and Simon France JJ

Judgment:

24 August 2018

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Recall application)

[1]        WorkSafe apply for a recall of the judgement.1 WorkSafe submits that the sentence calculation carried out by the Court in relation to the Tasman Tanning Co Ltd appeal is incorrect. It says that the Court has wrongly applied the guilty plea discount at the same time as other discounts, rather than as a final step. The effect is to lessen the level of fine from that which it would be if Hessell v R were followed.2

[2]       We do not need to hear from counsel for Tasman Tanning. We agree that the approach indicated in Hessell is as WorkSafe suggests. Whether applying a different methodology leads to an incorrect sentence is a different issue that need not be addressed here. As the Court of Appeal has said on a number of occasions, it is the ultimate end sentence that is important, rather than how it is crafted. The judgment was not intended to, and cannot, foreshadow a general departure from Hessell.

[3]       The matter is not one that comes within the usual rules concerning recall.3 The application is declined.

Venning J  Simon France J

1      Stumpmaster v Worksafe New Zealand [2018] NZHC 2020.

2      Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135, [2011] 1 NZLR 607.

3      High Court Rules 2016, r 11.9; Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633; and Erwood v Maxted [2010] NZCA 93 at [23].