GILL PIZZA LIMITED v A LABOUR INSPECTOR (MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT) [2021] NZSC 97

GILL PIZZA LIMITED v A LABOUR INSPECTOR (MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT) [2021] NZSC 97

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and framed the determinative question as whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude the Employment Court erred in finding that a Labour Inspector must first obtain a s6(5) declaration before commencing or continuing s228(1) proceedings; the Court did not decide the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] NZSC 97
Parties
Applicant: Gill Pizza Limited; Applicant: Sandeep Singh; Applicant: Jatinder Singh; Applicant: Mandeep Singh; Applicant: Malotia Limited; Respondent: A Labour Inspector (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment)
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
12 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Leave Granted; Appeal Set Down for Hearing
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted and matter set down for hearing
Legal Topics
Employment Relationship, Declaration of Employment Status, Employment Relations Act 2000 S6(5), Section 228(1) Proceedings
Employment Law Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Employment Relationship Declaration of Employment Status Employment Relations Act 2000 S6(5) Section 228(1) Proceedings

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gill Pizza Limited

Applicant

Sandeep Singh

Applicant

Jatinder Singh

Applicant

Mandeep Singh

Applicant

Malotia Limited

Applicant

A Labour Inspector (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Leave Granted; Appeal Set Down for Hearing

  1. 1 Whether a Labour Inspector must first obtain a declaration of employment status under s6(5) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 before commencing or continuing proceedings under s228(1)
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude the Employment Court erred in its approach

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and framed the determinative question as whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude the Employment Court erred in finding that a Labour Inspector must first obtain a s6(5) declaration before commencing or continuing s228(1) proceedings; the Court did not decide the substantive issue on the merits.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted and matter set down for hearing

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Approved question for appeal: whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude the Employment Court erred in finding that, if a defendant asserts there is no employment relationship, the Labour Inspector must first seek a declaration under s6(5) before commencing or continuing proceedings under s228(1)