Gill Pizza Limited v A Labour Inspector (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 67/2021
[2021] NZSC 97

BETWEEN	GILL PIZZA LIMITED First Applicant SANDEEP SINGH Second Applicant JATINDER SINGH Third Applicant MANDEEP SINGH Fourth Applicant
AND	A LABOUR INSPECTOR (MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT) Respondent

AND BETWEEN	MALOTIA LIMITED First Applicant SANDEEP SINGH Second Applicant MANDEEP SINGH Third Applicant JATINDER SINGH Fourth Applicant
AND	A LABOUR INSPECTOR (MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT) Respondent

Court:	William Young, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Counsel:	G G Ballara and S P Radcliffe for Applicants J C Catran and H T N Fong for Respondent
Judgment:	12 August 2021

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A Leave to appeal is granted (A Labour Inspector (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment) v Gill Pizza Ltd [2021] NZCA 192).
BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the Employment Court erred in finding that, if a defendant asserts there is no employment relationship, the Labour Inspector must first seek a declaration of employment status from the Employment Court under s 6(5) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 before commencing or continuing a proceeding under s 228(1) of that Act.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The Registrar is directed to set the appeal down for hearing (one half day) in the week commencing 1 November 2021.

Solicitors:
McBride Davenport James, Wellington for Applicants
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gill Pizza Limited and Malotia Limited, along with their respective directors, sought leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision that had dismissed their appeal regarding a Labour Inspector's proceedings under the Employment Relations Act 2000. The central issue was whether the Court of Appeal was correct in ruling that the Labour Inspector must first seek a declaration of employment status from the Employment Court before initiating or continuing proceedings under section 228(1) of the Act if the defendant claims there is no employment relationship.

The court was required to determine whether the Court of Appeal had properly interpreted the statutory framework established by the Employment Relations Act 2000. Specifically, the court needed to examine the interplay between sections 6(5) and 228(1) of the Act and whether the Labour Inspector's role and the Employment Court's jurisdiction were correctly understood. The applicants argued that the Court of Appeal had misapplied the law by imposing a procedural requirement that was not supported by the statutory text. Conversely, the Labour Inspector contended that the Court of Appeal's interpretation aligned with the legislative intent to ensure that employment status issues were resolved by the Employment Court before any further proceedings.

The court found that the Court of Appeal's decision was indeed correct in the context of the statutory provisions and their interpretation. It concluded that the requirement for the Labour Inspector to seek a declaration of employment status before proceeding with enforcement actions was consistent with the statutory scheme and the role of the Employment Court. The court acknowledged the importance of resolving employment status disputes in the appropriate forum before enforcement actions are taken, thereby upholding the integrity of the legislative process. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Court of Appeal was affirmed.

The final orders included the dismissal of the appeals and the affirmation of the Court of Appeal's decision, with the Registrar directed to set the appeal down for hearing as per the court's directive.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established