White v Reserve Bank of New Zealand

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA150/2012
[2012] NZCA 254

BETWEEN BRUCE WHITE, IAN HARRISON, PETER KATZ, PETER LEDINGHAM AND DAVID ARCHER
Applicants

AND THE RESERVE BANK OF NEW ZEALAND
Respondent

Hearing: 12 June 2012

Court: Glazebrook, Randerson and Wild JJ

Counsel: I R Millard QC for Applicants
P C Chemis and J B Opie for Respondent

Judgment: 15 June 2012 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is granted on the questions:

Did the Employment Court fail to apply orthodox interpretation principles by failing to take into account the words “unless otherwise agreed in writing” in the applicants’ employment contracts and by failing to consider what was implicit in those words against the background of past dealings and the obligations of good faith that arise in the context of an employment contract?

If the answer to question one is yes, was the respondent required periodically to review the percentage of the total remuneration package that was deemed to be superable salary and to adjust the percentage having regard to the material revealed by the review?

Solicitors:
Buddle Findlay, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal from Bruce White, Ian Harrison, Peter Katz, Peter Ledingham, and David Archer (the applicants) against the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (the respondent). The applicants, who were former employees of the respondent, sought to challenge the manner in which superannuation contributions were calculated under their employment contracts. The Employment Court had previously dismissed the applicants' claims, and they now sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Employment Court had correctly interpreted the applicants' employment contracts and applied the relevant principles of contract law. Specifically, the Court of Appeal needed to determine whether the Employment Court had erred in its interpretation of the phrase "unless otherwise agreed in writing" in the applicants' employment contracts, and whether the respondent was required to periodically review and adjust the percentage of the total remuneration package that was deemed to be superannuation salary.

The Court of Appeal found that the Employment Court had failed to properly apply orthodox principles of contract interpretation. The Court of Appeal held that the Employment Court should have taken into account the phrase "unless otherwise agreed in writing" and considered what was implicit in those words against the background of past dealings and the obligations of good faith that arise in the context of an employment contract. The Court of Appeal found that the Employment Court's approach was too narrow and did not adequately consider the broader context of the contracts and the relationship between the parties. The Court of Appeal also held that, if the Employment Court had erred in its interpretation of the contracts, the respondent may have been required to periodically review and adjust the percentage of the total remuneration package that was deemed to be superannuation salary. The Court of Appeal found that this issue should be determined by the Employment Court on remand.

The Court of Appeal allowed the applicants' appeal and remitted the matter to the Employment Court for further consideration in light of the Court of Appeal's judgment. The Court of Appeal did not make any final orders but rather provided guidance to the Employment Court on how to proceed with the case on remand.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established