LYNNE FRANCES SNOWDON v RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2022] NZSC 9

LYNNE FRANCES SNOWDON v RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2022] NZSC 9 [22 February 2022]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUISC 142/2021[2022] NZSC 9BETWEEN LYNNE FRANCES SNOWDONApplicantAND RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITEDRespondentCourt: Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook and Williams JJCounsel: J A Hickling for ApplicantM F Quigg for RespondentJudgment: 22 February 2022JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for an extension of time to apply for leaveto appeal is dismissed.B The application to adduce new evidence is dismissed.C The application for a stay of the execution of the costsdecision of the Employment Court is dismissed.D The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.____________________________________________________________________REASONSBackground[1] Between 2004 and 2009, Ms Snowdon brought a number of claims againstRadio New Zealand Ltd (RNZ) for unjustified disadvantage, unjustified dismissal andfraud in relation to the discovery process. All claims were consolidated and heard inthe Employment Court in 2013 and 2014. All were dismissed (the substantivedecision).1 The Court awarded RNZ costs of $490,000 (the costs decision).2The present applications[2] Ms Snowdon applies:(a) for leave to appeal out of time against both the substantive and the costsdecisions and directly to this Court;3(b) for leave to adduce new evidence: being documents obtained inAugust 2020 from Irirangi Te Motu | NZ On Air (a Crown entity thatfunds public media) under the Official Information Act 1982; and(c) for a stay of execution of the costs decision.[3] Ms Snowdon says that the leave application is made out of time because it hastaken six years to perform a forensic audit of RNZ's documents and theOfficial Information Act request could not be made until certain senior staff leftNZ On Air in 2020 because, according to Ms Snowdon, they would have opposed herrequest.Our assessment[4] No adequate reasons have been provided to justify the delay in filing thisapplication. In particular, there is no proper reason provided as to why theOfficial Information Act request could not have been made earlier. The time taken toconduct the forensic audit cannot excuse the delay as the new evidence now sought tobe adduced does not result from that audit.1 Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 45, [2014] ERNZ 180 (Judge Ford) [thesubstantive decision]. An application for further discovery had been dismissed in 2010: Snowdonv Radio New Zealand Ltd [2010] NZEmpC 10, [2010] ERNZ 33 (Judge Travis). An applicationfor leave to appeal against that decision was dismissed: Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Ltd [2010]NZCA 271 (William Young P, Ellen France and Randerson JJ).2 Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 180 (Judge Ford) [the costs decision].3 There has been no application filed for leave to appeal against either the substantive or the costsdecision to the Court of Appeal.[5] There are in any event no exceptional circumstances justifying an applicationfor leave to appeal directly to this Court.4 Further, the matters Ms Snowdon seeks toraise are issues of fact and related to the particular circumstances of this case. Appealsto this Court from the Employment Court are on questions of law only.5[6] The application for an extension of time must therefore be dismissed. In lightof this conclusion, the applications to adduce new evidence and for a stay must alsobe dismissed.Result[7] The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal isdismissed.[8] The application to adduce new evidence is dismissed.[9] The application for a stay to the proceedings is dismissed.[10] The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.Solicitors:Quigg Partners, Wellington for the Respondent4 Employment Relations Act 2000, s 214A(4).5 Section 214A(1). Applicants must also satisfy s 75 of the Senior Courts Act 2016, which wouldnot be met in this case either: Employment Relations Act, s 214A(4).