NEW ZEALAND BASING LIMITED V BROWN CA12/2015 [2015] NZCA 168
Leave to appeal was granted because the case raises questions of law of general and public importance under s 214 of the Employment Relations Act 2000: whether that Act can override the parties' chosen Hong Kong law and, if it does not, whether applying Hong Kong law would contravene New Zealand public policy. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] NZCA 168
- Parties
- Appellant: New Zealand Basing Limited; First Respondent: David Brown; Second Respondent: Glen Sycamore
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 13 May 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Leave to Appeal Granted
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted; questions of law formulated for determination; no order for costs on the leave application.
- Legal Topics
- Choice of Law, Employment Relations Act 2000 S214, Party Autonomy, Public Policy Exception
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
New Zealand Basing Limited
Appellant
David Brown
First Respondent
Glen Sycamore
Second Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Leave to Appeal Granted
Legal Issues
- 1 Does the Employment Relations Act 2000 override the parties' contractual choice of Hong Kong law?
- 2 If the Employment Relations Act does not apply, would applying Hong Kong law to the contract of employment be contrary to New Zealand public policy?
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was granted because the case raises questions of law of general and public importance under s 214 of the Employment Relations Act 2000: whether that Act can override the parties' chosen Hong Kong law and, if it does not, whether applying Hong Kong law would contravene New Zealand public policy. The Court will determine those legal questions on appeal.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted; questions of law formulated for determination; no order for costs on the leave application.
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted
- Questions of law for determination: (1) whether the Employment Relations Act 2000 applies and overrides the parties' choice of Hong Kong law; (2) if not, whether application of Hong Kong law would be contrary to public policy
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
DRAFTNEW ZEALAND BASING LIMITED V BROWN CA12/2015 [2015] NZCA 168 [13 May 2015]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA12/2015[2015] NZCA 168BETWEEN NEW ZEALAND BASING LIMITEDAppellantAND DAVID BROWNFirst RespondentAND GLEN SYCAMORESecond RespondentHearing: 11 May 2015Court: Ellen France P, Harrison and Stevens JJCounsel: H Waalkens QC and M Lawlor for AppellantG M Pollak for First RespondentJudgment: 13 May 2015 at 10 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Employment Court in Brown & Sycamore v New Zealand Basing Ltd1 is granted.B The questions of law for determination by this Court are:2[1] If the Employment Relations Act 2000 applies, does it override the parties agreement that the law of Hong Kong applies to their contract of employment?1 Brown & Sycamore v New Zealand Basing Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 229.2 Employment Relations Act 2000, s 214.[2] If the Employment Relations Act does not apply, would the application of the law of Hong Kong to their contract of employment be contrary to public policy?C There will be no order for costs on the application for leave given thatthe respondents' opposition was reasonable.Solicitors:Duncan Cotterill, Auckland for Appellant