VA’A v MARIST BROTHERS OLD BOYS RUGBY FOOTBALL CLUB (AUCKLAND) INC [2018] NZHC 2571

VA'A v MARIST BROTHERS OLD BOYS RUGBY FOOTBALL CLUB (AUCKLAND) INC [2018] NZHC2571 [1 October 2018]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2018-404-002037[2018] NZHC 2571BETWEEN ANDREW SEMA VA'AApplicantAND MARIST BROTHERS OLD BOYSRUGBY FOOTBALL CLUB(AUCKLAND) INCORPORATEDRespondentHearing: 26 September 2018Appearances: S G Ramsay for ApplicantM A Bowen for RespondentJudgment: 1 October 2018JUDGMENT OF PALMER JThis judgment was delivered by Justice Palmeron 1 October 2018 at 3.00 pmpursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar / Deputy RegistrarDate..Solicitors:S G Ramsay, Barrister, AucklandSBM Legal, AucklandApplication[1] On 24 September 2018, Mr Andrew Va'a filed an application for judicialreview against the Marist Brothers Old Boys Rugby Club Inc (Auckland) (MaristRugby) and a without notice application for interim orders under s 15 of the JudicialReview Procedure Act 2016 (JRPA). His claim relates to a proposed restructure whichwould lead to the disestablishment of his position and termination of his employmentas General Manager.[2] I did not consider the application should be heard on a without notice basis. Idirected the proceeding be served on Marist Rugby and heard from counsel for bothsides on 26 September 2018.Submissions[3] Ms Bowen, for Marist Rugby, appeared under a protest to jurisdiction. Shesubmitted the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) has exclusivejurisdiction to make determinations about employment relationship problems, and thatjurisdiction takes precedence over an application for judicial review. She submits thechallenge here concerns an employment relationship problem and it should properlybe considered under the Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA), such as by way ofpersonal grievance.[4] Mr Ramsay, for Mr Va'a, submits the proceeding seeks relief on the basis thepurported decision by the Board was invalid. He submits this court should hear theapplication because an interim injunction is outside the jurisdiction of the Authority.Decision[5] At the hearing on 26 September 2018 I advised counsel I considered Ms Bowenhad a good point. I urged Mr Ramsay to file proceedings under the ERA. The reasonsare:(a) Section 161 of the ERA provides the Authority has exclusivejurisdiction to make determinations about employment relationsproblems generally, including:(i) disputes about interpretation, operation or breach of anemployment agreement (under (a) and (b);(ii) personal grievances (under (e)); and(iii) any other action arising from or related to the employmentrelationship (under (r)), which includes a cause of action theessential character of which is to be found entirely within theemployment relationship.1(b) Section 194A provide an employee must use the employmentrelationship problem-solving provisions of the ERA to deal with anemployment relationship problem arising from exercise of a statutorypower of decisions and may not bring an application for review of sucha decision in the High Court;(c) Section 7 of the JRPA makes judicial review expressly subject to theprovisions of the ERA relating to jurisdiction, including s 194A.[6] Mr Va'a's claim falls squarely within his employment relationship with MaristRugby. It needs to be considered under the specialised procedures and decision-makers of the ERA. The High Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the proceedingas currently conceived, as a judicial review proceeding under the JRPA.Result[7] I dismiss the proceeding under r 5.49(6)(a) of the High Court Rules 2016. Idecline the application for an interim injunction.Palmer J1 BDM Grange Ltd v Parker [2006] 1 NZLR 353 (HC) at [66].