JONATHON PARKER AND ANOR V SILVER FERN FARMS LTD AND ANOR CA780/2009

JONATHON PARKER AND ANOR V SILVER FERN FARMS LTD AND ANOR CA780/2009

Leave to appeal was declined because the Judge's exercise of discretion to refuse an extension of time was within the range of reasonable outcomes: the delay was lengthy with inadequate explanation, the public interest in finality and the applicant's contributory conduct meant remedies would likely be reduced, and the contested issues about solicitor conduct are more appropriately addressed in judicial review rather than by grant of leave to appeal.

Citation
openlaw-44b2dd13_e58f_49c6_8739_687119956dcc.pdf
Parties
First Applicant: Jonathon Parker; Second Applicant: Alan Paul Cressey; First Respondent: Silver Fern Farms Limited; Second Respondent: The Employment Court at Wellington
Court
Unknown Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
28 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Judicial Review / Hearing on Applications for Leave to Appeal and for Consolidation; Judgment Declining Leave and Dismissing Consolidation Request
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal in CA800/2009 declined; application in CA780/2009 to be heard with CA800/2009 dismissed; no order for costs due to legal aid
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Unjustified Dismissal, Legal Aid Delay, Judicial Review, Natural Justice, Professional Conduct of Lawyers, Leave to Appeal
Employment Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Legal Aid Professional Negligence Extension of Time Unjustified Dismissal Legal Aid Delay +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathon Parker

First Applicant

Alan Paul Cressey

Second Applicant

Silver Fern Farms Limited

First Respondent

The Employment Court at Wellington

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal and Judicial Review / Hearing on Applications for Leave to Appeal and for Consolidation; Judgment Declining Leave and Dismissing Consolidation Request

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted on a question of law of general or public importance
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Court erred in refusing an extension of time under s219 of the Employment Relations Act 2000
  3. 3 Whether the delay was adequately explained by the legal aid application process

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was declined because the Judge's exercise of discretion to refuse an extension of time was within the range of reasonable outcomes: the delay was lengthy with inadequate explanation, the public interest in finality and the applicant's contributory conduct meant remedies would likely be reduced, and the contested issues about solicitor conduct are more appropriately addressed in judicial review rather than by grant of leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal in CA800/2009 declined; application in CA780/2009 to be heard with CA800/2009 dismissed; no order for costs due to legal aid

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal in CA800/2009 is declined.
  • The application for CA780/2009 to be heard in conjunction with CA800/2009 is dismissed.