C v Air Nelson Ltd

• Jurisdiction: New Zealand
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judge: Blanchard,Tipping,McGrath JJ
• Judgment Date: 30 August 2010
• Neutral Citation: [2010] NZSC 110
• Date: 30 August 2010
• Docket Number: SC 59/2010

[2010] NZSC 110

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

Court:

Blanchard, Tipping and McGrath JJ

SC 59/2010

BETWEEN

C

Applicant

and

Air Nelson Limited

Respondent

Counsel:

J Haigh QC for Applicant

C H Toogood QC and K M Thompson for Respondent

Application by C for leave to appeal against a refusal by the Court of Appeal to grant C leave to appeal from a decision of the Employment Court declining to suppress C's name pending determination of his claim against the respondent — whether the Supreme Court should grant leave where to do so would effectively negate the Supreme Court's inability to give leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal's refusal to grant leave (s7(b) Supreme Court Act 2003).

Held: The Supreme Court had jurisdiction to grant such an application but, because to do so would effectively negate the Supreme Court's inability to give leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal's refusal to grant leave (s7(b) Supreme Court Act 2003), C was required to show “extremely compelling circumstances” justifying the grant of leave. None exist here. No point of law or principle of general or public importance was involved, nor could the miscarriage ground be invoked. For these reasons the application for leave was dismissed.

The interim order for suppression of C's name made by the Court of Appeal on 23 June 2010 was continued until 5pm on 7 September 2010. This would enable C to apply to the Employment Court again, if so advised, should the present state of the case in that Court be thought to justify a suppression order.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

• A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

• B The interim order for suppression of the applicant's name made by the Court of Appeal on 23 June 2010 is to continue in force until 5pm on 7 September 2010.

REASONS

1 By a majority the Court of Appeal refused to grant the applicant leave to appeal from a decision of the Employment Court declining to suppress his name pending determination of his claim against the respondent. The applicant has now applied for leave to appeal directly from the Employment Court to this Court on the same issue. This Court has jurisdiction to grant such an application but, because to do so would effectively negate this Court's inability to give leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal's refusal to grant leave, 1 the applicant must show “extremely

compelling circumstances” justifying the grant of leave. 2 None exist here. No...