Anthony Paul Mount and Kaye Pamela Mount v Eleanor Margaretta Hannay

[2015] NZSC 162

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 89/2015
[2015] NZSC 162

BETWEEN

ANTHONY PAUL MOUNT AND KAYE PAMELA MOUNT
Applicants

AND

ELEANOR MARGARETTA HANNAY
First Respondent

GORDON RICHARD ROBERTS AND VALERIE DAWN ROBERTS
Second Respondents

SARAH JANE WILLIAMS AND GEOFFREY NIGEL RUTHERFURD WILLIAMS
Third Respondents

PATRICK JOHN MCENTYRE AND MARY HELEN MCENTYRE
Fourth Respondents

THOMAS ROBERT MILLER AND MARGARET GORDON MILLER
Fifth Respondents

PAMELA ALISON HALE AND PHILIP RALPH PALMER
Sixth Respondents

ISOBEL MARGARET HALE, MARGARET ROWLANDS AND CALDER BOTTING AS TRUSTEES OF THE HALE FAMILY TRUST
Seventh Respondents

ROBERT WILLIAM ASHLEY AND ELAINE MARGARET ASHLEY
Eighth Respondents

JOSEPH KWAI PING SUE AND PO CHUE SUE
Ninth Respondents

CHRISTINE ANGELA HAY
Tenth Respondent

MERCIA LAURA HOSKIN
Eleventh Respondent

ELIZABETH CLARE OLLIVER
Twelfth Respondent

DALE FRANCIS PETERSON AND LARAINE ALEXANDRA PETERSON
Thirteenth Respondents

DOUGLAS OPIE MOUNTFORT
Fourteenth Respondent

JUDITH MAY SILKE
Fifteenth Respondent

BRYAN JAMES PENNEY AND TRACY BRIGITTE PENNEY
Sixteenth Respondents

GEOFFREY GILBERT GUDSELL AND KAY LORRAINE GUDSELL
Seventeenth Respondents

DOUGLAS GREGORY, VIRGINIA ELIZABETH GREGORY AND TREVOR NELSON CAMERON AS TRUSTEES OF THE D & V E GREGORY FAMILY TRUST
Eighteenth Respondents

BEVERLEY PULLAR
Nineteenth Respondent

ELAINE FAULKNER HOLLINS
Twentieth Respondent

Court:	William Young, Arnold and O’Regan JJ
Counsel:	Applicants in person A R Shaw for Respondents
Judgment:	30 October 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

BThe applicants are to pay the respondents (collectively) costs of $2,500.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

1. The applicants were defendants in summary judgment proceedings in the High Court in which it was alleged that they and an associated company had misapplied money which clients had entrusted to them for investment purposes.  Summary judgment was granted against them.[1]  Their subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal achieved limited success as to quantum but was otherwise dismissed.[2]

   [1]Hannay v Mount [2013] NZHC 3497.

   [2]Mount v Hannay [2014] NZCA 600.

2. The applicants seek leave to appeal.  The basis of the proposed appeal is that the respondents – that is their former clients – (a) failed to disclose all relevant documents in the High Court proceedings; and (b) compromised the ability of the applicants to defend their proceedings by their litigation tactics (including by limiting the applicants’ access to funds; obtaining assistance from a litigation funder from June 2012 without disclosing this until August 2013; and taking steps to enforce the summary judgment before the appeal was heard).  Their broad contention is that they were denied their entitlement to natural justice.

3. These arguments were not advanced in the Court of Appeal.  As counsel for the respondents notes, they largely involve attempts to relitigate the merits of interlocutory decisions made in the course of the proceedings which were themselves appealable.  The funds released to the applicants for the defence of the civil and associated criminal proceedings totalled, according to the respondents, at least $600,000. 

4. We see no issue of public or general importance in the proposed appeal and no appearance of a miscarriage of justice.

Solicitors:
C & F Legal Limited, Nelson for Respondents