Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd

Last updated

Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd
Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg
Court Supreme Court of New Zealand
Full case nameJames Bryson v Three Foot Six Limited
Decided16 June 2005
Citation(s)[2005] NZSC 34
Transcript(s) http://courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/james-bryson-v-three-foot-six-limited/at_download/fileDecision
Case history
Prior action(s)Employment Court [2003] 1 ERNZ 581; Court of Appeal [2004] CA246/03
Case opinions
Blanchard J
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Elias CJ, Gault, Keith, Blanchard and Tipping JJ
Keywords
Employment relations, independent contractor, Lord of the Rings

Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd was a decision of the Supreme Court of New Zealand regarding the real status of a worker as either an employee or an independent contractor. The case concerned whether or not the Employment Court had erred in law by determining that Bryson was an employee of Three Foot Six Ltd. The decision has been made redundant in the film industry by the passage in 2010 of the Employment Relations (Film Production) Amendment Act during the production of The Hobbit. [1]

Contents

Background

Bryson, a hobby model-maker for twenty years had worked for Weta Workshops in 1996 and 1997 before working for them again in 1998 and in 2000 to make models for The Lord of the Rings. [2]

In April 2000, Bryson was seconded to a temporary position at Three Foot Six, although after two weeks work he was offered a permanent position as an on set model technician. [3] Bryson was not given any form of written employment agreement when he began work at Three Foot Six. [4]

In October 2000 Three Foot Six gave all crew a written contract which referred throughout to "Contractor" and "Independent Contractor" and Bryson continued to work for Three Foot Six through 2001 before being made redundant at the end of September 2001. [5]

Bryson raised a personal grievance alleging unjustified dismissal, an action that can only be brought if Bryson is found to be an employee and not a contractor. [6]

The matter of whether Bryson was an employee was dealt with as preliminary question. At first instance the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) found Bryson to be a contractor but when the matter was heard de novo in the Employment Court in 2003 Judge Shaw decided Bryson was an employee. On appeal by Three Foot Six, a majority of the Court of Appeal overturned the Employment Court decision and restored the decision of the ERA. [7]

Bryson took the matter to the Supreme Court on appeal.

Judgment

Justice Blanchard delivered the Supreme Court's unanimous decision allowing Bryson's appeal and restoring the decision of the Employment Court.

The key issue in this case concerned sections 6(2) and 6(3) of the Employment Relations Act which stated,

(2) In deciding for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) whether a person is employed by another person under a contract of service, the Court or the Authority (as the case may be) must determine the real nature of the relationship between them.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the Court or the Authority— (a) must consider all relevant matters, including any matters that indicate the intention of the persons; and

(b) is not to treat as a determining matter any statement by the persons that describes the nature of their relationship.

The majority of the Court of Appeal had overturned the Employment Court judgment on the basis that it contained an error of law. Judge Shaw, the majority had held,

was said to have ascertained the real nature of the arrangement by the three traditional tests which, the majority judgment said, left little scope for significant weight to be placed on contractual intention. The Judge had downplayed this. The majority was also critical of the way in which she had seen the industry context as having limited significance. Her approach in effect involved “a claim to require the restructuring of the way in which the film industry operates.” [8]

During the hearing Justices of the Supreme Court had raised issue with counsel that the Court of Appeal may have been incorrect in concluding that Judge Shaw's decision, "contained any error of law which could appropriately have been the subject of appeal to that Court". [9]

Counsel for Three Foot Six responded to the Supreme Court by stating that there were five errors of law in the Employment Court judgment.

Firstly, Judge Shaw was said to have "erred in saying that s 6 changed the tests for determining what constitutes a contract of service". [10] Justice Blanchard retorted that, "We are unable to find in her judgment anything concerning s 6 which does not appear faithfully to reflect the words of the section." [11]

The Supreme Court ruled that "all relevant matters" referred to in section 6 of the Employment Relations Act includes,

Secondly, it was alleged Judge Shaw had "fell into error in saying that the real nature of the relationship could be ascertained by analysing the tests that have been historically applied such as control, integration, and the “fundamental” test." Justice Blanchard disagreed, "She correctly used them, in conjunction with the other relevant matters to which she referred, in an endeavour to determine the real nature of the relationship, as directed by s 6(2)." [13]

Thirdly, it was alleged Judge Shaw, "disregarded industry practice". [14] Again Justice Blanchard failed to find that this was the case,

The question for this Court is whether the Court of Appeal majority was correct in holding that what the Judge said in relation to industry practice amounted to legal error. We do not believe that it was. She did not overlook or ignore the evidence of industry practice. [15]

Three Foot Six's fourth argument, that Judge Shaw was wrong to say there was no evidence of Bryson acting as a separate business entity when tax invoices existed, was swatted down by Justice Blanchard who reasoned that, "She plainly, and in our view correctly, felt that it did not provide any support for the respondent’s case". [16]

The last submission of counsel was, "that no reasonable Judge could have reached the same overall conclusion as Judge Shaw in finding that the relationship between the parties was of employment by Mr Bryson under a contract of service." [17] Justice Blanchard, failed to find merit in this line of attack, as the evidence as a whole did leave it open to Judge Shaw to find that the real nature of the relationship between Bryson and Three Foot Six was one of employment. [18]

Therefore, as the Employment Court decision contained no error of law, the Court of Appeal had not been empowered by the Employment Relations Act to allow it to be challenged, let alone overturned. [19]

Aftermath

On 29 October 2010 the New Zealand Parliament passed the Employment Relations (Film Production) Amendment Act under urgency after pressure from the makers of The Hobbit. [20] The law changed the definition of employee in section 6 of the Employment Relations Act to exclude all workers involved in the film production industry. [21]

Related Research Articles

Supreme Court of New Zealand

The Supreme Court of New Zealand is the highest court and the court of last resort of New Zealand. It formally came into being on 1 January 2004 and sat for the first time on 1 July 2004. It replaced the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, based in London. It was created with the passing of the Supreme Court Act 2003, on 15 October 2003. At the time, the creation of the Supreme Court and the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council were controversial constitutional changes in New Zealand. The Act was repealed on 1 March 2017 and superseded by the Senior Courts Act 2016.

An open shop is a place of employment at which one is not required to join or financially support a union as a condition of hiring or continued employment.

Supreme Court of Florida Highest court in the U.S. state of Florida

The Supreme Court of Florida is the highest court in the U.S. state of Florida. It consists of seven members: the chief justice and six justices. Five members are chosen from five districts around the state to foster geographic diversity, and two are selected at large.

Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance Australian trade union

The Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA), also sometimes referred to as the Alliance, is the Australian trade union and professional organisation which covers the media, entertainment, sports and arts industries.

Employment tribunals are tribunal public bodies in England and Wales and Scotland which have statutory jurisdiction to hear many kinds of disputes between employers and employees. The most common disputes are concerned with unfair dismissal, redundancy payments and employment discrimination. The tribunals are part of the UK tribunals system, administered by the HM Courts and Tribunals Service and regulated and supervised by the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council.

Courts of South Africa

The courts of South Africa are the civil and criminal courts responsible for the administration of justice in South Africa. They apply the law of South Africa and are established under the Constitution of South Africa or under Acts of the Parliament of South Africa.

<i>Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd</i>

Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22 is an English tort law case, creating a new precedent for finding where an employer is vicariously liable for the torts of their employees. Prior to this decision, it had been found that sexual abuse by employees of others could not be seen as in the course of their employment, precluding recovery from the employer. The majority of the House of Lords however overruled the Court of Appeal, and these earlier decisions, establishing that the "relative closeness" connecting the tort and the nature of an individual's employment established liability.

William Curtis Bryson is a Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He also served a 7-year term as a judge on the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, until 2018, and on September 1, 2013, became the presiding judge of that court.

14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247 (2009), is a United States labor law case decided by the United States Supreme Court on the rights of unionized workers to sue their employer for age discrimination. In this 2009 decision, the Court decided that whenever a union contract "clearly and unmistakably" requires that all age discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 be decided through arbitration, then employees subject to that contract cannot have those claims heard in court.

<i>Chamberlains v Lai</i> New Zealand law case

Chamberlains v Lai [2006] NZSC 70, is an important case which lifted "barristerial immunity" in New Zealand as a defence to negligence claims against barristers for their actions in both civil and criminal proceedings, which had been a feature of New Zealand since the early 1970s.

Judiciary of Kenya

The Judiciary of Kenya is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in Kenya. After the promulgation of the constitution of Kenya in 2010, the general public, through parliament, sought to reform the judiciary. Parliament passed the Magistrates and Judges Vetting Act of 2011. A major part of reforming the judiciary was the vetting of Magistrates and Judges in an attempt to weed out unsuitable ones. The Judicature Act has also been amended to raise the minimum number of Magistrates and Judges allowing more judicial officers to be hired. More magistrates and judges are needed to clear the backlog of cases that have caused great delay in the conclusion of cases and to staff new courts. New courts are needed to bring the courts closer to the people which is in line with devolution, a major principle written into the Constitution of 2010. New courts like the High Court opened in Garissa in November 2014 is a good example. In the past residents of North Eastern Kenya had to go all the way to Embu to access a High Court.

Antony "Tony" Shaw is a barrister of the High Court of New Zealand, and a former lecturer of Law at Victoria University. He holds an LLB & BA from Auckland University; his practice covers civil and criminal matters. He is regarded as an expert on Human Rights Law. Shaw has appeared widely in the District and High Courts of New Zealand including successful appeals to the Court of Appeal, Privy Council and the New Zealand Supreme Court. Shaw has also appeared in the Employment Court of New Zealand and regularly appears before the New Zealand Parole Board.

<i>Brooker v Police</i>

Brooker v Police was a case in the Supreme Court of New Zealand that concerned the meaning of "behaves in [a] disorderly manner" under section 4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981 in light of s 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 which protects freedom of expression. The majority of the Supreme Court overturned the previous test for disorderly behaviour "which found the offence proven where behaviour was so annoying that "right-thinking members of the public" could not be expected to tolerate it"; and set aside Allistair Brooker's conviction for disorderly behaviour. Justices McGrath and Thomas in the minority argued that the right to freedom of expression should be balanced against a citizen's right to privacy in their own home.

<i>Taunoa v Attorney-General</i>

Taunoa v Attorney-General was a case in the Supreme Court of New Zealand concerning breaches of prisoners' Bill of Rights protected rights by the Department of Corrections in the Behaviour Management Regime programme at Auckland Prison between 1998 and 2004.

Judiciary of the Netherlands

The Judiciary of the Netherlands is the system of courts which interprets and applies the law in the Netherlands.

<i>Allied Concrete Ltd v Meltzer</i>

Allied Concrete Ltd v Meltzer was a landmark Supreme Court decision on the defence to a court order allowing a liquidator to claw back value from an insolvent transaction. The matter in contention concerned whether repaying an old debt satisfied the words "gave value" in section 296(3)(c) of the Companies Act 1993. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that "gave value" includes value given when a debt was initially incurred by the now insolvent debtor company.

<i>Lee v Minor Developments Ltd</i>

Lee v Minor Developments Ltd t/a Before Six Childcare Centre was a decision of the Employment Court of New Zealand regarding the real status of a worker as either a permanent employee or a casual employee. The case concerned whether or not the Employment Relations Authority had erred in law by determining that Sharon Lee was a casual employee of Oceana Gold (NZ) Ltd.

The South Australian Employment Tribunal, which also sits as the South Australian Employment Court is a South Australian tribunal empowered to adjudicate on rights and liabilities arising out of employment. It has existed in some form or another since 1912, under various names.

<i>Benedict McGowan and Others v Labour Court and Others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Benedict McGowan and Others v Labour Court and Others [2013] 2 ILRM 276; [2013] IESC 21; [2013] 3 IR 718 is an Irish Supreme Court case, where an appeal was granted and the court made a declaration that the provisions of Part III of the Industrial Relations Act are invalid considering the provisions of Article 15.2.1 of the Constitution of Ireland. This court questioned the method by which wages and other benefits were set on a collective basis across numerous sectors.

Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court and Charles Lee, Real Party in Interest, 4 Cal.5th 903 was a landmark case handed down by the California Supreme Court on April 30, 2018. A class of drivers for a same-day delivery company, Dynamex, claimed that they were misclassified as independent contractors and thus unlawfully deprived of employment protections under California’s wage orders. Their claims raised the question of what the appropriate standard was to determine whether workers should be classified as employees or as independent contractors under California’s wage orders.

References

  1. ↑ Satherley, Dan (29 October 2010). "Hobbit Bill becomes law". 3 News. Mediaworks. Archived from the original on 11 April 2015. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
  2. ↑ Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] NZSC 34 at [3].
  3. ↑ Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] NZSC 34 at [3].
  4. ↑ Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] NZSC 34 at [3].
  5. ↑ Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] NZSC 34 at [3].
  6. ↑ Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] NZSC 34 at [3].
  7. ↑ Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] NZSC 34 at [2].
  8. ↑ Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] NZSC 34 at [15].
  9. ↑ Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] NZSC 34 at [17].
  10. ↑ Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] NZSC 34 at [30].
  11. ↑ Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] NZSC 34 at [31].
  12. ↑ Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] NZSC 34 at [32].
  13. ↑ Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] NZSC 34 at [33].
  14. ↑ Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] NZSC 34 at [34].
  15. ↑ Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] NZSC 34 at [35].
  16. ↑ Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] NZSC 34 at [39].
  17. ↑ Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] NZSC 34 at [40].
  18. ↑ Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] NZSC 34 at [40].
  19. ↑ "The Law on Independent Contractors and Employees: the Supreme Court's Decision in Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd" (PDF). Department of Labour. Department of Labour. July 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 January 2015. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
  20. ↑ Satherley, Dan (29 October 2010). "Hobbit Bill becomes law". 3 News. Mediaworks. Archived from the original on 11 April 2015. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
  21. ↑ Roberts, Jim (28 October 2010). "The Hobbit law - what does it mean for workers?". NZHerald. APN. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.