Legal Research
Cases
Watkins v Highmark Homes Ltd

Watkins v Highmark Homes Ltd

Case [2025] NZCA 173 16 May 2025

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Employment & Labour Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA685/2024
[2025] NZCA 173

BETWEEN	NICOLA WATKINS Applicant
AND	HIGHMARK HOMES LIMITED Respondent

CA855/2024
BETWEEN	NICOLA WATKINS Appellant
AND	HIGHMARK HOMES LIMITED First Respondent ROBERT JAMES HUNT Second Respondent RYAN STEPHEN HUNT Third Respondent RED STAG GATES AND FENCES LIMITED Fourth Respondent AUCKLAND STEEL FABRICATIONS LIMITED Fifth Respondent

Court:	French P and Whata J
Counsel:	Applicant in CA685/2024, Appellant in CA855/2024 R Upton for Respondent CA685/2024 and for First, Second and Third Respondents in CA855/2024 No appearances for Fourth and Fifth Respondents in CA855/2024
Judgment (On the papers):	16 May 2025 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application in CA685/2024 for extensions of time in which to seek leave to appeal the decisions of the Employment Court is declined.
BThe appeal in CA855/2024 is struck out.
CWe make no order as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Whata J)

Ms Watkins wants to appeal:
(a)an interlocutory order by the Employment Court for security as to costs in the sum of $10,000 (the EC security decision);[1]
(b)a costs order by the Employment Court of $10,396.50 in respect of the security for costs matter (the EC costs decision);[2] and
(c)an order of the High Court staying a defamation proceeding brought by her and two related entities.[3]
[1]Watkins v Highmark Homes Ltd [2024] NZEmpC 105 [EC security decision].
[2]Watkins v Highmark Homes Ltd [2024] NZEmpC 167 [EC costs decision].
[3]Watkins v Highmark Homes Ltd [2024] NZHC 3075 [HC stay decision].
The appeals from the Employment Court require leave pursuant to s 214 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. In addition, Ms Watkins filed her leave application against the security decision 97 days late, and 16 days late for the costs decision.[4] As a consequence of this, Ms Watkins must obtain extensions of time under r 16A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 (the Rules) in which to seek leave. We consider this matter in this judgment.
[4]An application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Employment Court must, in the absence of an extension of time, be filed in this Court within 28 days of the Employment Court’s decision being issued: Employment Relations Act 2000, s 214(2).
We also examine whether the appeal against the stay decision should be struck out pursuant to r 44A(1)(c) of the Rules.

Background

Ms Watkins was dismissed from Highmark Homes Ltd (HHL) in November 2017. On 30 November 2022, the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) dismissed Ms Watkins’ personal grievance claim, and allowed HHL’s counterclaim. HHL was awarded damages of $3,500.25.[5] On 1 December 2022, the ERA also declined to reopen a previous determination where it was found Ms Watkins had not raised a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal in time.[6] On 4 August 2023, the ERA declined an application by Ms Watkins to reopen these two decisions.[7]
[5]Watkins v Highmark Homes Ltd [2022] NZERA 632 at [53]–[54].
[6]As recorded…

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 Watkins v Highmark Homes Ltd

Details

AGLC: Watkins v Highmark Homes Ltd [2025] NZCA 173
Case: [2025] NZCA 173
Decision Date: 16 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nicola Watkins sought leave to appeal decisions from the Employment Court and High Court. The Court of Appeal declined the application for extensions of time in which to seek leave to appeal the Employment Court decisions, and struck out the appeal from the High Court decision. The Court found the delays in bringing the appeals were substantial and the appeals were hopeless, with no issues of general or public importance raised. The Court also found that the appeal from the High Court was an abuse of process as it was being used to pursue claims that had no evidential basis and to avoid bankruptcy. The Court struck out the appeal and made no order as to costs.

Orders