Stumpmaster v Worksafe New Zealand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2018-404-039

[2018] NZHC 2190

BETWEEN
STUMPMASTER

Appellant

AND

WORKSAFE NEW ZEALAND

Respondent

WHANGANGUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI 2017-483-000016

BETWEEN

THE TASMAN TANNING COMPANY
Appellant

AND

WORKSAFE NEW ZEALAND

Respondent

INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI 2018-425-7

BETWEEN

NIAGARA SAWMILLING COMPANY LIMITED

Appellant

AND

WORKSAFE NEW ZEALAND

Respondent

Hearing: On Papers

STUMPMASTER v WORKSAFE NEW ZEALAND [2018] NZHC 2190 [24 August 2018]

Counsel:
Coram:

T J Mackenzie for Stumpmaster

G Gallaway and J Lill for The Tasman Tanning Co and Niagara Sawmilling Co Ltd

D La Hood, S Petricevic and T G Bain for WorkSafe NZ

Venning and Simon France JJ

Judgment:

24 August 2018

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Recall application)

[1] WorkSafe apply for a recall of the judgement.1 WorkSafe submits that the sentence calculation carried out by the Court in relation to the Tasman Tanning Co Ltd appeal is incorrect. It says that the Court has wrongly applied the guilty plea discount at the same time as other discounts, rather than as a final step. The effect is to lessen the level of fine from that which it would be if Hessell v R were followed.2

[2] We do not need to hear from counsel for Tasman Tanning. We agree that the approach indicated in Hessell is as WorkSafe suggests. Whether applying a different methodology leads to an incorrect sentence is a different issue that need not be addressed here. As the Court of Appeal has said on a number of occasions, it is the ultimate end sentence that is important, rather than how it is crafted. The judgment was not intended to, and cannot, foreshadow a general departure from Hessell.

[3] The matter is not one that comes within the usual rules concerning recall.3 The application is declined.

Venning J Simon France J

1      Stumpmaster v Worksafe New Zealand [2018] NZHC 2020.
2      Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135, [2011] 1 NZLR 607.
3      High Court Rules 2016, r 11.9; Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633; and Erwood v Maxted [2010] NZCA 93 at [23].

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stumpmaster v Worksafe New Zealand involved multiple appellants, including Stumpmaster, The Tasman Tanning Company, and Niagara Sawmilling Company Limited, all of whom were contesting decisions made by Worksafe New Zealand. The primary dispute centred around the calculation of fines imposed by Worksafe, which the appellants argued were incorrectly calculated. The matter was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, before Venning and Simon France JJ.

The legal issues the court had to decide included whether the methodology used to calculate the fines was in accordance with the principles established in Hessell v R, specifically regarding the timing and application of discounts. The appellants argued that the fines were calculated incorrectly because the guilty plea discount was not applied as the final step in the sentencing process, which they claimed was inconsistent with the approach recommended by Hessell v R. This raised a question about the proper application of sentencing discounts and whether the fine imposed was accurately reflective of the prescribed methodology.

The court acknowledged that the approach to calculating the fine in the Tasman Tanning Co Ltd case did not follow the Hessell v R guideline correctly. The judges agreed with Worksafe that the discount should have been applied as the final step in the calculation process. However, the court also noted that the recall application did not fall under the usual rules for such applications and declined the recall request. The judges emphasized that while the calculation method was incorrect, it did not necessitate a departure from the established sentencing principles, and thus, the fine calculation remained valid despite the procedural error.

In summary, the court declined the recall application by Worksafe New Zealand, reaffirming the importance of correctly applying the discount methodology as outlined in Hessell v R. However, it held that the fine calculation did not need to be revisited because the ultimate sentence remained valid, even if the process used to reach that sentence was flawed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established