Jeffries v Adis International Ltd [2007] NZCA 197; [2007] ERNZ 393 (21 May 2007)

Last Updated: 2 January 2012

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA81/07

[2007] NZCA 197

BETWEEN ADAIR NITHSDALE JEFFRIES
Applicant

AND ADIS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
Respondent

Hearing: 14 May 2007

Court: William Young P, Glazebrook and Wilson JJ

Counsel: Applicant in Person
N A Cervin for the Respondent

Judgment: 21 May 2007 at 9 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2. The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $400.
   

REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by William Young P)

[1] Ms Adair Jeffries maintains that she was constructively and unjustifiably dismissed by Adis International Limited. The critical events occurred as long ago as September 2000. The claim was initially heard by the Employment Relations Authority and rejected in a decision delivered on 15 July 2005. Ms Jeffries was subsequently ordered to pay costs of $3,000. Challenges by her to these decisions (ie the dismissal of her claim and the award of costs) were heard de novo in the Employment Court. In a judgment released on 7 December 2006, Judge Travis found that Ms Jeffries had not been constructively dismissed by Adis International. Accordingly the challenge in relation to the unjustified dismissal claim was dismissed. The Judge did not finally resolve the costs issue.
[2] On 27 February 2007 Ms Jeffries applied for leave to appeal out of time from the 7 December 2006 judgment. She has not filed an affidavit explaining her delay in filing the application for leave to appeal. Nor were submissions provided on her behalf in accordance with the usual procedures. Counsel, who appeared for Ms Jeffries in the Employment Court and filed the application for leave to appeal out of time, has now withdrawn.
[3] Ms Jeffries seeks an adjournment so that she can (with the assistance of new legal advice) put forward errors of law which would warrant the grant of leave. She explained the delay in filing the appeal as being the fault of her former counsel (who did not tell her, she says, of the last date for filing an application for leave to appeal).
[4] Ms Cervin for Adis International opposed the adjournment.
[5] There is no general right to appeal from a judgment of the Employment Court. Leave to appeal is required (see s 214(1) of the Employment Relations Act 2000) and under s 214(3) we may only grant leave if we can identify an issue of law:

... that, by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision.

[6] Ms Jeffries’ claim before the Employment Relations Authority failed on the facts. The same is true of the claim in the Employment Court. We have read the judgment of Judge Travis carefully but have been unable to discern any conceivable legal issue which would warrant a grant of leave to appeal. Ms Jeffries, despite being represented until last week, has been unable to do so either via her former counsel or personally. Indeed, the various complaints about the judgment which she has articulated are all factual in nature.
[7] Adis International is entitled to have this longstanding dispute resolved definitively. It would not be right to grant an adjournment to Ms Jeffries on the off chance that a point of law which no one has yet been able to detect might emerge. This is particularly so in light of the time which has now elapsed since the events giving rise to the case occurred.
[8] In the course of the argument, Ms Jeffries made some complaints about a particular incident which allegedly occurred at the hearing. It is clear, however, that whatever happened was drawn to the attention of the Judge. This alleged incident does not provide a basis for grant of leave to appeal.
[9] Accordingly, we dismiss the application. Ms Jeffries is to pay the respondent costs of $400.

Solicitors:
Bell Gully, Auckland for Respondent