BOWEN v BANK OF NEW ZEALAND [2021] NZCA 598
Leave to appeal was declined because the decision not to remove the proceeding did not raise an intrinsic question of law of sufficient general or public importance to warrant determination by the Court of Appeal; consequently the application for stay was also declined.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] NZCA 598
- Parties
- Applicant: Melissa Jane Bowen; Respondent: Bank of New Zealand
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 12 November 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal Against Non Removal From the Employment Relations Authority / Application for Leave to Appeal and Application for Stay (on the Papers)
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal declined; application for stay declined; applicant ordered to pay respondent costs.
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Removal of Proceedings, Stay of Proceedings, Personal Grievance
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Melissa Jane Bowen
Applicant
Bank of New Zealand
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Non Removal From the Employment Relations Authority / Application for Leave to Appeal and Application for Stay (on the Papers)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court of Appeal should grant leave to appeal from a decision declining removal of a personal grievance from the Employment Relations Authority to the Employment Court
- 2 Whether an appeal against non-removal raises a question of law of general or public importance
- 3 Whether a stay of proceedings in the Authority should be granted pending an appeal
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was declined because the decision not to remove the proceeding did not raise an intrinsic question of law of sufficient general or public importance to warrant determination by the Court of Appeal; consequently the application for stay was also declined.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal declined; application for stay declined; applicant ordered to pay respondent costs.
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal is declined
- Application for stay is declined
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
BOWEN v BANK OF NEW ZEALAND [2021] NZCA 598 [12 November 2021]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA324/2021[2021] NZCA 598BETWEEN MELISSA JANE BOWENApplicantAND BANK OF NEW ZEALANDRespondentCourt: Kós P and Cooper JCounsel: M W O'Brien for ApplicantR M Rendle and M G Bolwell for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)12 November 2021 at 9 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for leave to appeal is declined.B The application for stay is declined.C The applicant must pay the respondent costs for a standard application ona band A basis with usual disbursements.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Kós P)[1] Ms Bowen sought, but failed, to persuade the Employment Court to grantspecial leave for removal of her proceeding for personal grievance from theEmployment Relations Authority to the Court.1 She seeks leave to appeal to this1 Bowen v Bank of New Zealand [2021] NZEmpC 71. Ms Bowen argued an important question oflaw was likely to arise in her matter other than incidentally: Employment Relations Act 2000,s 178(2)(a).Court.2 She seeks also an order for stay of the proceeding in the Authority pendingdetermination of that appeal.[2] Such an appeal requires identification of a question of law that, by reason ofits general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to thisCourt for decision.3[3] We will assume for present purposes, but without deciding the point, that thestatutory provision is broad enough to encompass an appeal against non-removal.4However, such an appeal raises no intrinsic question of law, let alone one that calls fordecision by this Court because of general, public or other importance. That theunderlying proceeding may possibly involve an important question of law does notmean that the decision where to hear that question is itself important and one needingthis Court's opinion.[4] It follows also that the application in this Court for stay should be declined.Result[5] The application for leave to appeal is declined.[6] The application for stay is declined.[7] The applicant must pay the respondent costs for a standard application on aband A basis with usual disbursements.Solicitors:Just Lawyers (NZ) Ltd, Auckland for ApplicantSimpson Grierson, Auckland for Respondent2 Employment Relations Act, s 214(1).3 Section 214(3).4 Cf Lane v Esdaile [1891] AC 210 (HL); Collier v Elders Pastoral Ltd (No 2) (1991) 3 PRNZ 478(CA); Simes v Tennant (2005) 17 PRNZ 684 (CA); and Seamar Holdings Ltd v Kupe Group Ltd[1995] 2 NZLR 274 (CA).