BRYSON V THREE FOOT SIX LIMITED SC CIV 24/2004 [10 August 2005]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC CIV 24/2004
[2005] NZSC 54
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
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
T Cleary for Business New Zealand
Judgment: 10 August 2005
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ON COSTS
A. The costs of $16,000 and disbursements of $878.87 awarded by the Employment Court are confirmed.
B. The costs order in the Court of Appeal is reversed. The appellant is awarded $6,000 covering costs in that Court and
its disbursements in that Court of $183.64.
C. Costs in this Court payable by the respondent are fixed at $15,000 together with the appellant’s disbursements to be
determined if necessary by the Registrar.
D. There will be no costs award in relation to either of the Interveners.
REASONS
(Given by Blanchard J)
[1] Having considered the written submissions of counsel, we see no reason to depart in this case from the approach to
costs awards in this Court set out in Prebble v Awatere Huata (No 2) [2005] 2 NZLR 467 at [11] and [12].
[2] Counsel for the respondent submitted that costs should lie where they fell because this was the first case before
the Court, and before the Court of Appeal, to examine and determine the legislative intent of s 6 of the Employment
Relations Act 2000 and thus should be treated as a test case on a new area of the law. Because, however, of the leave
criteria in s 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 the issues before this Court are always likely to involve such questions
of novelty and general significance. This was not a case in which the amount at stake for the respondent was entirely
disproportionate to the overall benefit for it of retaining the Court of Appeal judgment. It was not a true test case,
as where one litigant for whom personally only a small sum is in issue is selected to represent a number of persons in a
similar position, such as happens, for example, when the Commissioner of Inland Revenue designates a matter as a test
case.
[3] The appellant, for his part, submitted that costs should be increased because interveners were permitted to file
written submissions. On the other hand, however, leave was granted on the papers, without need for a hearing.
Solicitors:
Gibson Sheat, Lower Hutt for Appellant
Simpson Grierson, Auckland for Respondent
Tim Cleary, Wellington for Business New Zealand
ENDS