A LABOUR INSPECTOR (MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT) v GILL PIZZA LIMITED [2019] NZCA 655
The Court granted leave because the Employment Court’s requirement that a Labour Inspector must obtain a s 6(5) declaration before commencing or continuing a s 228(1) proceeding raises a distinct question of law concerning the correct statutory interpretation of ss 6(5) and 228(1) and therefore warrants appellate...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] NZCA 655
- Parties
- Applicant: A Labour Inspector (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment); First Respondent: Gill Pizza Limited; Second Respondent: Sandeep Singh; Third Respondent: Jatinder Singh; Fourth Respondent: Mandeep Singh; Fifth Respondent: Malotia Limited
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 18 December 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal From the Employment Court / Leave to Appeal Granted; Substantive Appeal Pending
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted on the specified question of law; costs on the leave application reserved pending the substantive appeal
- Legal Topics
- Labour Inspector Powers, Employment Status, S 6(5) Employment Relations Act 2000, S 228(1) Employment Relations Act 2000, Jurisdictional Challenge
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
A Labour Inspector (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment)
Applicant
Gill Pizza Limited
First Respondent
Sandeep Singh
Second Respondent
Jatinder Singh
Third Respondent
Mandeep Singh
Fourth Respondent
Malotia Limited
Fifth Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal From the Employment Court / Leave to Appeal Granted; Substantive Appeal Pending
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether, when a defendant denies an employment relationship, a Labour Inspector must first obtain a declaration of employment status under s 6(5) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 before commencing or continuing proceedings under s 228(1) of that Act
Ratio Decidendi
The Court granted leave because the Employment Court’s requirement that a Labour Inspector must obtain a s 6(5) declaration before commencing or continuing a s 228(1) proceeding raises a distinct question of law concerning the correct statutory interpretation of ss 6(5) and 228(1) and therefore warrants appellate determination; costs on the application were reserved.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted on the specified question of law; costs on the leave application reserved pending the substantive appeal
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted on the following question of law: whether the Employment Court erred in finding that, if a defendant asserts there is no employment relationship, the Labour Inspector must first seek a declaration of employment status from the Employment Court under s 6(5) before commencing or continuing a...
- Costs on the application are reserved pending determination of the substantive appeal
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
A LABOUR INSPECTOR (MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT) v GILL PIZZALIMITED [2019] NZCA 655 [18 December 2019]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA488/2019[2019] NZCA 655BETWEEN A LABOUR INSPECTOR (MINISTRY OFBUSINESS, INNOVATION ANDEMPLOYMENT)ApplicantAND GILL PIZZA LIMITEDFirst RespondentSANDEEP SINGHSecond RespondentJATINDER SINGHThird RespondentMANDEEP SINGHFourth RespondentMALOTIA LIMITEDFifth RespondentCourt: Brown and Clifford JJCounsel: A E Scott-Howman and C R English for ApplicantG G Ballara and S P Radcliffe for RespondentsJudgment:(On the papers)18 December 2019 at 10 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is granted on the following question of law:Whether the Employment Court erred in finding that, if adefendant asserts there is no employment relationship,the Labour Inspector must first seek a declaration of employmentstatus from the Employment Court under s 6(5) ofthe Employment Relations Act 2000 before commencing orcontinuing a proceeding under s 228(1) of that Act.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Clifford J)[1] The applicant is granted leave to bring an appeal on the following question oflaw:Whether the Employment Court erred in finding that, if a defendant assertsthere is no employment relationship, the Labour Inspector must first seeka declaration of employment status from the Employment Court under s 6(5)of the Employment Relations Act 2000 before commencing or continuinga proceeding under s 228(1) of that Act.[2] Costs on the application are reserved pending determination of the substantiveappeal.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for ApplicantMcBride Davenport James, Wellington for Respondents