Maheta v Skybus New Zealand Limited (formerly Airbus Express Limited)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA27/2021
[2021] NZCA 493

BETWEEN	DHARMENDRA MAHETA Applicant
AND	SKYBUS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (FORMERLY AIRBUS EXPRESS LIMITED) Respondent

Court:	Clifford and Courtney JJ
Counsel:	L M Hansen for Applicant S M Lapthorne for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	28 September 2021 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is granted.
CThe approved questions are:
(a)Did the Employment Court err in holding it had no jurisdiction to order a stay of the Employment Relations Authority’s costs determination, as Mr Maheta had applied for?
(b)Did the Employment Court err in awarding security for costs to the respondent on the basis that Mr Maheta was not in receipt of legal aid?

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Clifford J)

The applicant, Mr Maheta, is granted an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal.[1]
[1]Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 29A.
Leave to appeal is granted on the following two questions of law:[2]
[2]Employment Relations Act 2000, s 214.
(a)Did the Employment Court err in holding it had no jurisdiction to order a stay of the Employment Relations Authority’s costs determination, as Mr Maheta had applied for?
(b)Did the Employment Court err in awarding security for costs to the respondent on the basis that Mr Maheta was not in receipt of legal aid?

Solicitors:
Kiely Thompson Caisley, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an application from Dharmendra Maheta, appealing a decision of the Employment Court. Maheta sought an extension of time to appeal and leave to appeal the Employment Court's decision, which denied his application for a stay of the Employment Relations Authority's costs determination and required him to provide security for costs. The respondents, Skybus New Zealand Limited (formerly Airbus Express Limited), opposed the application. Clifford and Courtney JJ heard the case and granted Maheta's application for an extension of time and leave to appeal on two specific questions of law.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal involved the Employment Court's jurisdiction and its decision to deny Maheta's request for a stay of the Employment Relations Authority's costs determination. The first question posed was whether the Employment Court erred in holding it had no jurisdiction to order a stay of the Employment Relations Authority's costs determination, as Maheta had requested. The second question focused on whether the Employment Court erred in awarding security for costs to the respondent on the basis that Maheta was not in receipt of legal aid. These questions required the Court of Appeal to consider the scope of the Employment Court's jurisdiction and its discretion in ordering stays of costs determinations and awarding security for costs.

The Court of Appeal, in granting Maheta's application for an extension of time and leave to appeal, found that the questions of law raised were significant enough to warrant further examination. The Court of Appeal's decision to grant leave to appeal on these specific questions indicates that the Court recognised the importance of these issues in the context of employment law and the potential impact on future cases. By addressing these questions, the Court of Appeal aims to clarify the Employment Court's jurisdiction and the criteria for granting stays of costs determinations and awarding security for costs in employment law matters.

The Court of Appeal granted Maheta's application for an extension of time and leave to appeal on the two questions of law. The Court will now consider these questions in the appeal hearing, with the aim of providing clarity on the Employment Court's jurisdiction and its discretion in ordering stays of costs determinations and awarding security for costs. The final outcome of the appeal will depend on the arguments presented by both parties and the Court of Appeal's interpretation of the relevant legal principles.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established