18 Nov 2020
Leave to appeal was declined because the Employment Court's interpretation of the termination letter was a tenable, language‑based factual conclusion within its province, the issue was case‑specific and not of sufficient general or public importance under s214, and the legal effect of payment in lieu in a trial period context was already addressed by Ioan v Scott Technology NZ Ltd.
19 Nov 2019
The Court refused leave because the Court of Appeal correctly held that 'notice of termination' includes payment in lieu of working the notice period, so s 67B applied to bar a personal grievance; the issues raised were fact-specific and did not meet the criteria for leave or demonstrate a real risk of miscarriage of justice.
9 Dec 2008
Application for leave dismissed because the central contractual issue involved application of law to facts and potentially construction of the employment agreement (outside s 214), and there was no error of law in the Employment Court's assessment of reasons; the applicant did not establish a question of law of sufficient general or public importance.