the matter has been dealt with as a preliminary question the employment relations au 239862

The matter has been dealt with as a preliminary question. The Employment
Relations Authority took the view that Mr Bryson was a contractor.1
Mr Bryson
elected to have the matter heard de novo by the Employment Court. In a reserved
judgment delivered on 14 October 2003, Judge Shaw held that Mr Bryson had been
employed under a contract of service and so had been an employee.2
The Court of
Appeal gave leave to appeal, saying that there was a qualifying question of law
involved.3
By majority (William Young J and O’Regan J; McGrath J dissenting) it
allowed the appeal of Three Foot Six and restored the determination of the
Authority.4

Document Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC CIV 24/2004 [2005] NZSC 34 BETWEEN JAMES BRYSON Appellant AND THREE FOOT SIX LIMITED Respondent AND NEW ZEALAND COUNCIL OF TRADE UNIONS First Intervener AND BUSINESS NEW ZEALAND Second Intervener Hearing: 8 April 2005 Court: Elias CJ, Gault, Keith, Blanchard and Tipping JJ Counsel: M E Gould and T J Anderson for Appellant P M Muir and L S Jenkins for Respondent L J Taylor and C P Chauvel for New Zealand Council of Trade Unions as First Intervener B A Corkill and S J Davies for Business New Zealand as Second Intervener Judgment: 16 June 2005 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A. The appeal is allowed. B. The decision of the Employment Court is restored. C. Costs in favour of the appellant against the respondent will be fixed by the Court following receipt of written submissions. BRYSON V THREE FOOT SIX LIMITED SC CIV 24/2004 [16 June 2005]REASONS (Given by Blanchard J) [1] Between 17 April 2000 and 28 September 2001 Mr Bryson did work for Three Foot Six Ltd in its miniatures unit which was filming special effects for the Lord of the Rings project. The issue before the Court is whether he did so as an employee or as an independent contractor. Only if he was an employee can he pursue his personal grievance claims against Three Foot Six under the Employment Relations Act 2000. [2] The matter has been dealt with as a preliminary question. The Employment 1 Relations Authority took the view that Mr Bryson was a contractor. Mr Bryson elected to have the matter heard de novo by the Employment Court. In a reserved judgment delivered on 14 October 2003, Judge Shaw held that Mr Bryson had been 2 employed under a contract of service and so had been an employee. The Court of Appeal gave leave to appeal, saying that there was a qualifying question of law 3 involved. By majority (William Young J and O’Regan J; McGrath J dissenting) it allowed the appeal of Three Foot Six and restored the determination of the 4 Authority. The Employment Court’s…

Related Articles

armstrong helmet company 239138

Armstrong Helmet Company manufactures a unique model of bicycle helmet Question Case project Learning Objectives: Prepare practical applications of course concepts Develop analytical and critical thinking Develop decision-making capabilities Enhance professional...

read more
GET A FREE QUOTE





  
Open chat
Need help? We are Online 24/7
Hello 👋
Can we help you?