Va'a v Marist Brothers Old Boys Rugby Football Club (Auckland) Incorporated

[2018] NZHC 2571

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-002037

[2018] NZHC 2571

BETWEEN

ANDREW SEMA VA’A

Applicant

AND

MARIST BROTHERS OLD BOYS RUGBY FOOTBALL CLUB (AUCKLAND) INCORPORATED

Respondent

Hearing:	26 September 2018
Appearances:	S G Ramsay for Applicant M A Bowen for Respondent
Judgment:	1 October 2018

JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Palmer on 1 October 2018 at 3.00 pm

pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar / Deputy Registrar Date………………………..

Solicitors:

S G Ramsay, Barrister, Auckland SBM Legal, Auckland

VA’A v MARIST BROTHERS OLD BOYS RUGBY FOOTBALL CLUB (AUCKLAND) INC [2018] NZHC
2571 [1 October 2018]

Application

[1]    On 24 September 2018, Mr Andrew Va’a filed an application for judicial review against the Marist Brothers Old Boys Rugby Club Inc (Auckland) (Marist Rugby) and a without notice application for interim orders under s 15 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 (JRPA). His claim relates to a proposed restructure which would lead to the disestablishment of his position and termination of his employment as General Manager.

[2]    I did not consider the application should be heard on a without notice basis. I directed the proceeding be served on Marist Rugby and heard from counsel for both sides on 26 September 2018.

Submissions

[3]    Ms Bowen, for Marist Rugby, appeared under a protest to jurisdiction. She submitted the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) has exclusive jurisdiction to make determinations about employment relationship problems, and that jurisdiction takes precedence over an application for judicial review. She submits the challenge here concerns an employment relationship problem and it should properly be considered under the Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA), such as by way of personal grievance.

[4]    Mr Ramsay, for Mr Va’a, submits the proceeding seeks relief on the basis the purported decision by the Board was invalid. He submits this court should hear the application because an interim injunction is outside the jurisdiction of the Authority.

Decision

[5]    At the hearing on 26 September 2018 I advised counsel I considered Ms Bowen had a good point. I urged Mr Ramsay to file proceedings under the ERA. The reasons are:

(a)Section 161 of the ERA provides the Authority has exclusive jurisdiction to make determinations about employment relations problems generally, including:

(i)disputes about interpretation, operation or breach of an employment agreement (under (a) and (b);

(ii)personal grievances (under (e)); and

(iii)any other action arising from or related to the employment relationship (under (r)), which includes a cause of action the essential character of which is to be found entirely within the employment relationship.1

(b)Section 194A provide an employee must use the employment relationship problem-solving provisions of the ERA to deal with an employment relationship problem arising from exercise of a statutory power of decisions and may not bring an application for review of such a decision in the High Court;

(c)Section 7 of the JRPA makes judicial review expressly subject to the provisions of the ERA relating to jurisdiction, including s 194A.

[6]    Mr Va’a’s claim falls squarely within his employment relationship with Marist Rugby. It needs to be considered under the specialised procedures and decision- makers of the ERA. The High Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the proceeding as currently conceived, as a judicial review proceeding under the JRPA.

Result

[7]    I dismiss the proceeding under r 5.49(6)(a) of the High Court Rules 2016. I decline the application for an interim injunction.

Palmer J

1      BDM Grange Ltd v Parker [2006] 1 NZLR 353 (HC) at [66].