Board of Trustees of Melville High School v Cronin-Lampe

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA689/2021
[2021] NZCA 686

BETWEEN	BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MELVILLE HIGH SCHOOL Applicant
AND	KATHLEEN CRONIN-LAMPE First Respondent RONALD CRONIN-LAMPE Second Respondent

Counsel:	A C Challis for Applicant T M Braun for First and Second Respondents F L Becroft and L D Hawes-Gandar for Accident Compensation Corporation as Intervenor
Judgment: (On the papers)	15 December 2021 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF BROWN J

Leave to appeal is granted on the question of law:
Whether the Employment Court has jurisdiction to hear a proceeding in which a claimant has made claims under the Accident Compensation Act 2001 but review and appeal rights under that Act have not been exhausted?

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant applies for leave to appeal under s 214(1) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 against a decision of the Employment Court on a preliminary issue of jurisdiction.[1] The grounds of appeal are:
The Employment Court has erred in failing to apply the Supreme Court’s interpretation of s 133(5) Accident Compensation Act 2001 in Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Limited [2021] NZSC 30. In particular that the Employment Court does not have jurisdiction to hear a proceeding, or order remedies for the same injuries, where claims were made and coverage sought under that Act but review and appeal rights have not been exhausted.
[1]Cronin-Lampe v Board of Trustees of Melville High School [2021] NZEmpC 201.
This Court may only grant leave if the question of law raised by the proposed appeal is one which by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason ought to be submitted to this Court for decision.[2]
[2]Employment Relations Act 2000, s 214(3).
The first and second respondents do not oppose the application for leave but will oppose the appeal should leave be granted. The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) takes a neutral position, neither supporting nor opposing the application for leave to appeal.
I consider that the appeal raises a question of law which crosses the threshold in s 214(3). That question of law is:
Whether the Employment Court has jurisdiction to hear a proceeding in which a claimant has made claims under the Accident Compensation Act 2001 but review and appeal rights under that Act have not been exhausted?
Leave to appeal is granted on that question of law.
ACC was listed as third respondent. It is not a party to the proceeding but appeared as intervenor in the Employment Court as it had a right to be heard under s 320 of the Accident Compensation Act. In light of this I believe it is appropriate to continue to characterise ACC as an intervenor and have done so accordingly.

Solicitors:
McElroys, Auckland for Applicant
Braun Bond and Lomas, Auckland for First and Second Respondents
Medico Law Ltd, Auckland for Third Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Board of Trustees of Melville High School applied for leave to appeal a decision of the Employment Court regarding the jurisdiction of the court to hear a proceeding where the claimant had made claims under the Accident Compensation Act 2001, but had not exhausted review and appeal rights under that Act. Kathleen Cronin-Lampe and Ronald Cronin-Lampe opposed the application but would oppose the appeal should leave be granted. The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) took a neutral position. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Employment Court had jurisdiction to hear a proceeding when the claimant had made claims under the Accident Compensation Act but had not exhausted their review and appeal rights under that Act.

The Court found that the question of law raised by the proposed appeal was of general or public importance and ought to be submitted to the Court for decision. The Court granted leave to appeal on the question of law. The Court emphasised that the ACC was listed as a third respondent, not a party to the proceeding, but appeared as an intervenor in the Employment Court as it had a right to be heard under section 320 of the Accident Compensation Act. The Court deemed it appropriate to continue to characterise ACC as an intervenor.

The Court granted leave to appeal on the question of law: whether the Employment Court has jurisdiction to hear a proceeding in which a claimant has made claims under the Accident Compensation Act 2001 but review and appeal rights under that Act have not been exhausted. The Court did not address the merits of the case but focused on the jurisdictional issue. The appeal will now proceed to a hearing where the Court will determine the jurisdictional issue.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established