LORIGAN v INFINITY AUTOMOTIVE LTD [2020] NZCA 320

LORIGAN v INFINITY AUTOMOTIVE LTD [2020] NZCA 320 [31 July 2020]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA534/2019[2020] NZCA 320BETWEEN PETER D'ARCY LORIGANApplicantAND INFINITY AUTOMOTIVE LIMITEDRespondentCourt: Gilbert and Collins JJCounsel: Applicant in personR L Towner for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)31 July 2020 at 9.00 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for leave to appeal is declined.B The applicant must pay the respondent costs for a standard application ona band A basis and usual disbursements.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Collins J)[1] Mr Lorigan seeks leave to appeal a decision of the Employment Court whichstayed two of Mr Lorigan's proceedings against Infinity Automotive Ltd (Infinity)until he paid outstanding costs.11 Lorigan v Infinity Automotive Ltd [2019] NZEmpC 118.[2] The criteria for leave under the Employment Relations Act 2000 are prescribedin s 214(3):The Court of Appeal may grant leave accordingly if, in the opinion of thatcourt, the question of law involved in that appeal is one that, by reason of itsgeneral or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted tothe Court of Appeal for decision.[3] Mr Lorigan seeks leave to appeal on a number of grounds, including allegedfraudulent conduct by Infinity, bias on the part of the Employment Court, and broaderallegations of corruption.[4] Infinity, in opposition to this application, submits that Mr Lorigan has notraised any question of law of general or public importance as required by s 214(3).The factual errors that Mr Lorigan alleges are not sufficient. Further, this applicationis an indirect challenge to the underlying costs orders which Mr Lorigan has not soughtto challenge.Analysis[5] The first criterion for leave in s 214(3) is that the proposed appeal identifies aquestion of law. Mr Lorigan's application fails to do so. Instead, he wishes to pursuea general appeal on various broad grounds against the Employment Court's judgment.[6] The second criterion in s 214(3) is that any question of law that is proposedmust be one of general or public importance. Nothing in the proposed appeal raisesany question of general or public importance. The focus of the proposed appeal is onfactual issues which have no significance beyond the present dispute.[7] Leave may also be granted to appeal on a question of law "for any other reason"under s 214(3). No other reasons can be identified to justify leave being granted.Result[8] The application for leave to appeal is declined.[9] Mr Lorigan is liable for costs on this application.2 He is to pay Infinity costsfor a standard application on a band A basis and usual disbursements.Solicitors:Bell Gully, Auckland for Respondent2 Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 53G(1).