AMCOR PACKAGING (NZ) LIMITED V NEW ZEALAND AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING PRINTING & MANUFACTURING UNION COA CA769/2011
Leave to appeal was granted because it was arguable that the Employment Court applied wrong or unorthodox principles of interpretation to clause 10 of the collective agreement and that, for that reason, the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction under s 214 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, following Secretary for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- COA CA769/2011
- Parties
- Appellant: AMCOR PACKAGING (NZ) LIMITED; Respondent: NEW ZEALAND AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING PRINTING & MANUFACTURING UNION
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 8 March 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Leave Granted
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted on a question of law
- Legal Topics
- Interpretation of Clause 10 of Collective Agreement, Unorthodox Principles of Interpretation, Jurisdiction Under S 214 Employment Relations Act 2000
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
AMCOR PACKAGING (NZ) LIMITED
Appellant
NEW ZEALAND AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING PRINTING & MANUFACTURING UNION
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Leave Granted
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Employment Court applied unorthodox principles of interpretation to clause 10 of the collective agreement
- 2 Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction under s 214 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 to hear the appeal
- 3 The correct meaning of clause 10 of the collective agreement
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was granted because it was arguable that the Employment Court applied wrong or unorthodox principles of interpretation to clause 10 of the collective agreement and that, for that reason, the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction under s 214 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, following Secretary for Education v Yates.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted on a question of law
Orders
- Leave to appeal is granted on the following question: Was the decision of the Employment Court on the meaning of clause 10 of the collective agreement in issue wrong because it applied unorthodox principles of interpretation?
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
AMCOR PACKAGING (NZ) LIMITED V NEW ZEALAND AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING PRINTING & MANUFACTURING UNION COA CA769/2011 [8 March 2012]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA769/2011[2012] NZCA 78BETWEEN AMCOR PACKAGING (NZ) LIMITEDAppellantAND NEW ZEALAND AMALGAMATEDENGINEERING PRINTING &MANUFACTURING UNIONRespondentHearing: 6 March 2012Court: O'Regan P, Randerson and Stevens JJCounsel: R Harrison for AppellantA-M McInally for RespondentJudgment: 8 March 2012 at 2.30 p.m.JUDGMENT OF THE COURTLeave to appeal is granted on the following question:Was the decision of the Employment Court on the meaning of clause 10 of the collective agreement in issue wrong because it applied unorthodox principles of interpretation?___________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT[1] We record that we are satisfied this Court has jurisdiction to consider the appeal under s 214 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. We reach that conclusion because we consider it is arguable that wrong or unorthodox principles of interpretation were applied by the Employment Court and that jurisdiction exists in terms of the decision of this Court in Secretary for Education v Yates.11 Secretary for Education v Yates [2004] 2 ERNZ 313.[2] Leave to appeal is granted on the following question:Was the decision of the Employment Court on the meaning of clause 10 of the collection agreement in issue wrong because it applied unorthodox principles of interpretation?Solicitors:Quigg Partners, Wellington for Appellant