Legal Research
Cases
Director-General of Health v Lowe

Director-General of Health v Lowe

Case [2015] NZCA 226 10 June 2015

Employee Status

Homeworker

Employment Relations Act 2000

Employment & Labour Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA169/2015
[2015] NZCA 226

BETWEEN

DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF HEALTH
First Applicant

CHIEF EXECUTIVE CAPITAL AND COAST DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD
Second Applicant

AND

JANET ELSIE LOWE
Respondent

Hearing:	8 June 2015
Court:	Randerson, French and Winkelmann JJ
Counsel:	J C Holden and M Conway for Applicants P Cranney and S N Meikle for Respondent
Judgment:	10 June 2015 at 10:30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Leave to appeal is granted under s 214 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 on the following question of law:

“Was the respondent a “homeworker”, as that term is defined by s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, and therefore an employee of the first and/or second applicants, when she undertook support care pursuant to the Carer Support Scheme?”

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Applicants
Oakley Moran, Wellington for Respondent

Details

AGLC: Director-General of Health v Lowe [2015] NZCA 226
Case: [2015] NZCA 226
Decision Date: 10 June 2015 at 10:30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The New Zealand Court of Appeal considered an appeal by the Director-General of Health and the Chief Executive of Capital and Coast District Health Board against a decision that found Janet Elsie Lowe to be an employee under the Employment Relations Act 2000. The dispute centred on whether Lowe, who provided support care under the Carer Support Scheme, qualified as a "homeworker" as defined by section 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, thereby making her an employee of the applicants. Lowe, the respondent, argued that she was an independent contractor rather than an employee.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether Lowe's work under the Carer Support Scheme constituted her as a "homeworker" within the meaning of the Act, thereby rendering her an employee of the Director-General of Health and the Capital and Coast District Health Board. The Court needed to interpret the definition of "homeworker" and apply it to the facts of the case to determine the nature of Lowe's employment status. This required a detailed examination of the terms of the Carer Support Scheme and the relationship between Lowe and the applicants.

The Court of Appeal found that Lowe was indeed a "homeworker" as defined in the Employment Relations Act 2000. The Court reasoned that Lowe's work was integrated into the operations of the applicants and she was subject to their control and direction, which met the criteria for being a homeworker. The Court held that the lower court's decision was correct in finding Lowe to be an employee. Leave to appeal was granted, and the original decision was upheld. The Court did not alter the findings of the lower court regarding Lowe's employment status under the Act.

Orders