OCEANA GOLD (NEW ZEALAND) LTD V JINKINSON CA CA536/2010
Leave to appeal was granted on the two identified questions of law concerning the Employment Court's assessment of reimbursement under ss 123 and 128 and the matters in paragraph [79]; the Court exercised r27(2) to withhold written reasons; security for costs is not payable on the leave application under s214 but...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-e1cd6da7_fefc_4b16_a0ed_a2de81dd6df3.pdf
- Parties
- Applicant: Oceana Gold (New Zealand) Limited; Respondent: Tracey Jinkinson
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 2 December 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal (employment Relations Act 2000) / Court of Appeal Chambers Decision Granting Leave; Reasons Withheld; Costs Reserved
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal granted on identified questions of law; costs reserved.
- Legal Topics
- Reimbursement for Lost Remuneration, Ss 123 and 128 Employment Relations Act 2000, Security for Costs, Leave to Appeal Under S214
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Oceana Gold (New Zealand) Limited
Applicant
Tracey Jinkinson
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal (employment Relations Act 2000) / Court of Appeal Chambers Decision Granting Leave; Reasons Withheld; Costs Reserved
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Employment Court erred in failing to take into account all relevant considerations when assessing reimbursement for lost remuneration under ss 123 and 128 of the Employment Relations Act 2000
- 2 Whether the Employment Court erred in taking into account as a factor in assessing the quantum of reimbursement the matters referred to in [79] of that Court's reasons for judgment
- 3 Whether security for costs had to be paid on the application for leave under reg 69 of the Employment Court Regulations 2000
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was granted on the two identified questions of law concerning the Employment Court's assessment of reimbursement under ss 123 and 128 and the matters in paragraph [79]; the Court exercised r27(2) to withhold written reasons; security for costs is not payable on the leave application under s214 but must be provided once the appeal is filed in accordance with r35.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal granted on identified questions of law; costs reserved.
Orders
- Grant leave to appeal on the questions of law specified in the judgment
- Costs on the application for leave reserved
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
OCEANA GOLD (NEW ZEALAND) LTD V JINKINSON CA CA536/2010 2 December 2010IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA536/2010 [2010] NZCA 581BETWEEN OCEANA GOLD (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED Applicant AND TRACEY JINKINSON Respondent Hearing: 30 November 2010 Court: Chambers, Randerson and Stevens JJ Counsel: L K Brook for Applicant R M Kelly and K J Jarvis for Respondent Judgment: 2 December 2010 at 4 pmJUDGMENT OF THE COURT A The application for leave to appeal is granted on the following questions of law: (1) Did the Employment Court err in failing to take into account all relevant considerations when assessing reimbursement for lost remuneration under ss 123 and 128 of the Employment Relations Act 2000? (2) Did the Employment Court err in taking into account as a factor in assessing the quantum of reimbursement the matters referred to in [79] of that Court's reasons for judgment? B Costs on the application for leave are reserved.REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Chambers J) [1] We have decided leave should be granted on the two questions identified by Ms Brook for Oceana Gold (New Zealand) Limited, the applicant. We do not give reasons, in accordance with r 27(2) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. [2] Ms Kelly, for Tracey Jinkinson, the respondent, raised the question whether security for costs in respect of the application for leave had been paid, as seemingly required by reg 69 of the Employment Court Regulations 2000. Notwithstanding that regulation, security for costs does not have to be paid on an application for leave to appeal under s 214 of the Employment Relations Act: see this Court's discussion in Kidd v Equity Realty (1995) Ltd. 1[3] Once Oceana Gold files its appeal, it will have to provide security for costs in accordance with r 35 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules.Solicitors: Anderson Lloyd, Dunedin, for Applicant Wilkinson Adams, Dunedin, for Respondent1 Kidd v Equity Realty (1995) Ltd [2008] NZCA 545, (2008) 6 NZELR 291 at [4]-[12].