Temple v Pilgrim - [2023] NZCA 631

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA458/2023
[2023] NZCA 631

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

Court:	Miller and Collins JJ
Counsel:	P G Skelton KC and C B Pearce for Applicants B P Henry, D J Gates and O K Thomas for Respondents
Judgment: (On the papers)	8 December 2023 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal on the four questions of law identified by the applicants, listed at [3] below, is declined.
B We invite submissions on whether leave should be granted on the two questions of law set out at [17] below. Having regard to the impending vacation we direct that the Registrar liaise with counsel and set a timetable for the exchange of submissions (limited to 10 pages).

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Miller J)

The applicants seek leave to appeal to this Court from a judgment of the Employment Court finding that the respondents were employees.[1] This finding entitled the respondents to the protection of employment law.
[1]Pilgrim v Attorney General [2023] NZEmpC 105, (2023) 19 NZELR 793 [judgment under appeal].
No general appeal lies from the Employment Court. The applicants must point to a question of law which, by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to this Court for decision.[2]
[2]Employment Relations Act 2000, s 214(3). Any question of law must also be one that is seriously arguable: Kidd v Cowan [2020] NZCA 681 at [32].
The applicants have posed four questions:
(a)Did the Employment Court err by misdirecting itself on the requirements of s 6 of the ERA2000 (the meaning of “employee”), which incorporates the legal concept of a contract of service? (Q1)
(b)Did the Employment Court err by misapplying the test in s 6, or in the alternative was the Court’s conclusion (that the Plaintiffs were employees) so insupportable as to amount to an error of law? (Q2)
(c)Did the Employment Court err by making an order under s 6(5) declaring that the plaintiffs were employees, without determining the identity of the plaintiffs’ employer? (Q3)
(d)Did the Employment Court err by conducting the trial in a manner that breached natural justice? (Q4)
The first three of these questions concern s 6 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, which relevantly states that:
6 Meaning of employee
(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, employee—
(a)means any person of any age employed by an employer to do any work for hire or reward under a contract of service; and
…
(c)excludes a volunteer who—
(i)does not expect to be rewarded for work to be performed as a volunteer; and
(ii)receives no reward for work performed as a volunteer.
…
(2)In deciding for the purposes of subsection (1)(a)…

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 Temple v Pilgrim

Details

AGLC: Temple v Pilgrim [2023] NZCA 631
Case: [2023] NZCA 631
Decision Date: 8 December 2023 at 10.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the applicants, Howard Temple, Samuel Valor, Faithful Pilgrim, Noah Hopeful, and Stephen Standfast, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Employment Court that the respondents, Serenity Pilgrim, Anna Courage, Rose Standtrue, Crystal Loyal, Pearl Valor, and Virginia Courage, were employees. The applicants argued that the respondents were volunteers and not employees, as defined by the Employment Relations Act 2000. The applicants proposed four questions of law for the Court to consider, all of which pertained to the interpretation and application of section 6 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, which defines an employee and outlines the criteria for determining whether a contract of service exists.

The Court of Appeal considered the applicants' questions and determined that none of them warranted leave to appeal. The Court found that the Employment Court had correctly applied the legislative framework in deciding the nature of the respondents' relationship with the Gloriavale community. The Court held that the Employment Court's decision was supported by evidence and was not so insupportable as to constitute an error of law. The Court further found that the Employment Court did not err in leaving the identity of the employer to be determined at a later stage and that the Court's decision did not breach natural justice.

The Court of Appeal, however, invited submissions on two narrower questions of law that may have wider significance for religious or volunteer organisations: (a) whether the respondents worked for hire or reward; and (b) if not, whether they were volunteers for the purposes of section 6(1)(c). The Court directed the Registrar to liaise with counsel and set a timetable for the exchange of submissions (limited to 10 pages) and indicated that the decision would be made on the papers. The Court declined to grant leave to appeal on the four questions proposed by the applicants.

Solicitors for the applicants were Duncan Cotterill, Christchurch, and for the respondents, Shanahans Law, Auckland.

Orders