Vaz v Dutton

[2025] NZHC 1646

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2024-409-702 [2025] NZHC 1646

BETWEEN

KEVIN G VAZ

Appellant

AND

WILLIAM DAVID DUTTON

Respondent

Hearing:	11 June 2025
Appearances:	K G Vaz (Appellant) in person J P Hodgins for Respondent
Judgment:	19 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

[Jurisdiction]

Introduction

[1]    Mr Vaz seeks to appeal a decision of the District Court1 dismissing an appeal from the Disputes Tribunal (the Tribunal).2 The Tribunal referee made an order under s 18(8) of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 (the Act).

The jurisdictional issue

[2]    The intended appeal came before Mander J as Duty Judge in February 2025. The Judge noted an issue as to whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear a second appeal under the Act. The Judge issued a Minute identifying decisions in which this

1      Mr Vaz exercised his right to appeal the Dispute Tribunal’s order to the District Court under s 50(1) Disputes Tribunal Act 1988. Following a hearing, Judge R A Neave dismissed the appeal—see Vaz v Dutton [2024] NZDC 27075.

2      Vaz v Dutton, Order of Disputes Tribunal, CIV-2022-009-002694, 10 March 2023.

VAZ v DUTTON [2025] NZHC 1646 [19 June 2025]

Court has previously found it does not have jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal in relation to a proceeding originating in the Tribunal.3

[3]    Mr Vaz asserted the Court does have jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal. The Court allocated a hearing to determine the preliminary issue of jurisdiction.

Statutory framework

The Act

[4]Section 23 of the Act provides:

23       Decisions of Tribunal to be final

Every  agreed  settlement  approved  by  the   Tribunal   under section 18(3), and every order made by the Tribunal under section 18(8) or section 46(2) or section 47(3)(b), and every variation of a term of an agreed settlement under section 47(3)(a), shall be final and binding on all parties to the proceedings in which that settlement is approved or the order or variation is made, as the case may require, and, except as provided in section 50, no appeal shall lie in respect of any such order or variation or approved settlement.

[5]Section 50 of the Act provides:

50       Appeals

(1)Any party to proceedings before the Tribunal may appeal to the District Court against an order  made  by  the  Tribunal  under section 18(8) or section 46(2) or section 47(3)(b), or against the approval by the Tribunal of an agreed settlement under section 18(3), or against the variation of a term of an agreed settlement under section 47(3)(a), on the grounds that—

(a)the proceedings were conducted by the Referee; or

(b)an inquiry was carried out by an Investigator—

in a manner that was unfair to the appellant and prejudicially affected the result of the proceedings.

…

3      Vaz v Dutton HC Christchurch CIV-2024-409-701, 3 February 2025, at [3], citing Mellow v Tsang [2004] NZAR 537 (HC); Hopkins v New Life Upholstery Ltd HC Whangarei CIV 2010-488-106, 6 July 2011; Menzies v North Shore Laser and Skin Care Centre Limited [2018] NZHC 1035; and Seymour v Spark New Zealand Trading Ltd [2023] NZHC 3193.

District Court Act 2016

[6]    There is a general right of appeal provided by s 124(1) District Court Act 2016 which Mr Vaz seeks to invoke. Section 124 provides:

124     General right of appeal

(1)This Part applies to a decision of the court, other than a decision of a kind in respect of which an enactment other than this Act—

(a)expressly confers a right of appeal; or

(b)expressly provides that there is no right of appeal.

(2)A party to a proceeding in the District Court may appeal to the High Court against the whole or a part of a decision made by the District Court in or in relation to the proceeding.

The grounds of the intended appeal

[7]    Mr Vaz’s grievance before this Court remains on the same grounds as his appeal to the District Court. Namely, that he did not receive a fair hearing in the Tribunal for various reasons, and Judge Neave erred in not allowing the appeal on that ground.

Submissions on jurisdiction

Appellant’s submissions

[8]    Mr Vaz relies on the general appeal provision in s 50 of the Act in arguing that this Court has jurisdiction to hear his appeal. In Mr Vaz’s submission, there is scope for an appeal to the High Court on the wording of s 50 because the provision does not expressly rule out the possibility of an appeal to the High Court. Mr Vaz argues that s 124(2) of the District Court Act 2016 accordingly provides an appeal pathway.

[9]    Mr Vaz cited the 2003 decision in Bayley Investments Trust v Salkeld (Bayley) in support of his argument.4 In Bayley, this Court entertained an appeal against a decision from the Tribunal after the District Court heard and determined an appeal.5

4      Bayley Investments Trust v Salkeld [2003] NZAR 344 (HC).

5      Salmon J found there was jurisdiction for this Court to hear and determine an appeal from the District Court for proceedings that began in the Disputes Tribunal under s 71A of the now repealed District Courts Act 1947.

Respondent’s submissions

[10]   Mr Hodgins for Mr Dutton submits that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear Mr Vaz’s appeal, as this would not be an appeal falling within the appeal regime established by s 50 of the Act. He noted this has been established by numerous decisions of this Court (identified in footnote 3 above). Mr Hodgins submits the legislative intent of s 23 of the Act is expressly to provide finality for decisions of  the Tribunal, subject to the one right of appeal contained in s 50.

Discussion

[11]   The statutory provisions in ss 23 and 50 of the Act govern the issue of jurisdiction—this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the second appeal Mr Vaz seeks to pursue.

[12]   Section 23 of the Act provides that the Tribunal’s order made under s 18(8) is final. Finality has been explained as meaning an order of the Tribunal is “beyond challenge, irrespective of any … legal complaint that might be made about it” save for those limited circumstances which qualify for an appeal to the  District Court under  s 50(1) of the Act.6 Mr Vaz has exhausted the appeal pathway. The Tribunal’s decision is, by the terms of s 23 of the Act, “final and binding” on Mr Vaz.7

[13]   The express conferral of a right of the appeal to the District Court under s 23 of the Act enlivens s 124(1)(a) District Court Act as the Disputes Tribunal Act is an enactment that “expressly confers a right of appeal”. Part 9 of the District Court Act does therefore not apply in the present situation to provide a general right of appeal from a judgment of the District Court to the High Court.

[14]   As did Keane J in Mellow v Tsang and Duffy J in Menzies v North Shore Laser and Skin Care Centre Ltd, I respectfully disagree with the reasoning adopted by

6      Menzies v North Shore Laser and Skin Care Centre Limited, above n 3, at [12]. See also Seymour v Spark New Zealand Trading Ltd, above n 3, at [7].

7      Edwards v The Photo Warehouse Ltd [2016] NZHC 582 at [10].

Salmon J in Bayley. I adopt the reasoning of Keane and Duffy JJ, a line of reasoning consistently applied in this Court since the decision in Mellow v Tsang.8

[15]   Mr Hodgins seeks costs pursuant to r 14.3 of the High Court Rules 2016, under category 1. There is no reason why costs should not follow the event.

Outcome

[16]I order:

(a)the notice of appeal is struck out; and

(b)Mr Vaz is to pay the respondent costs on a 1B basis which I fix at

$5,962.50.

Osborne J

Solicitors:
KT Law Ltd, Christchurch

Copy to:
K G Vaz

8      Hopkins v New Life Upholstery Ltd, above n 4, at [3]; Menzies v North Shore Laser and Skin Care Centre Limited, above n 3; Edwards v The Photo Warehouse Ltd, above n 7, at [10]; James v NZSouthpole Team Ltd (in liq) [2021] NZHC 657 at [62]–[63]; Shea Ltd v District Court at Manukau [2021] NZHC 1880 at [55]; Macsmith’s Tires Ltd v George Stock and Company Ltd [2022] NZHC 438; Rafiee v Daruwalla [2023] NZHC 1554; and Seymour v Spark New Zealand Trading Ltd, above n 3, at [5].