BRILL v LABOUR INSPECTOR (MELISSA ANN MACRURY) [2016] NZCA 262
Leave to appeal was granted on the specific statutory question under s 234(2) because the appeal raises an important and arguable issue; an extension of time was granted because, although the delay was insufficiently explained, it was not so extensive as to justify refusal in the circumstances.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] NZCA 262
- Parties
- Applicant: Barry Edward Brill; Respondent: Labour Inspector (Melissa Ann Macrury)
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 15 June 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Leave Granted; Extension of Time Application
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted on the specified s 234(2) question; extension of time granted.
- Legal Topics
- Minimum Wages, Holiday Pay, Director/officer Liability, S 234(2) Employment Relations Act 2000, Extension of Time
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Barry Edward Brill
Applicant
Labour Inspector (Melissa Ann Macrury)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Leave Granted; Extension of Time Application
Legal Issues
- 1 What must the Labour Inspector prove under s 234(2) to establish that an officer, director or agent directed or authorised default in payment of minimum wages or holiday pay?
- 2 Whether an extension of time to bring the appeal should be granted despite an unexplained delay
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was granted on the specific statutory question under s 234(2) because the appeal raises an important and arguable issue; an extension of time was granted because, although the delay was insufficiently explained, it was not so extensive as to justify refusal in the circumstances.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted on the specified s 234(2) question; extension of time granted.
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted on the question: In terms of s 234(2) of the Employment Relations Act 2000, what must the Labour Inspector prove to establish that any officer, director, or agent of the company has directed or authorised the default in payment of the minimum wages or holiday pay or both?
- Application for an extension of time to bring the appeal is granted.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
BRILL v LABOUR INSPECTOR (MELISSA ANN MACRURY) [2016] NZCA 262 [15 June 2016]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA701/2015[2016] NZCA 262BETWEEN BARRY EDWARD BRILLApplicantAND LABOUR INSPECTOR (MELISSA ANNMACRURY)RespondentCourt: Randerson, Stevens and Miller JJCounsel: Appellant (in person)S McKechnie for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)15 June 2016 at 4.00 pmJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA We grant leave to appeal from the Employment Court on the following question:In terms of s 234(2) of the Employment Relations Act 2000, what must the Labour Inspector prove to establish that any officer, director, or agent of the company has directed or authorised the default in payment of the minimum wages or holiday pay or both?B The application for an extension of time is granted.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Miller J)[1] We need not give reasons for granting leave to appeal from the Employment Court.1 So far as the extension of time is concerned, there is force inthe respondent's contention that the delay is insufficiently explained, but the appealraises an important and arguable question and the delay is not so extensive as to justify refusing an extension in the circumstances.Solicitors:Crown Law, Wellington for Respondent1 Labour Inspector (Melissa Ann MacRury) v Cypress Villas Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 157.