Beere v Bullock - [2025] NZHC 387

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2021-404-2416

[2025] NZHC 387

BETWEEN
WARREN ERNEST BEERE

Plaintiff

AND

GEORGE BULLOCK

First Defendant

PHILLIP RAYMOND NOTTINGHAM
Second Defendant

ROBERT EARLE McKINNEY
Third Defendant

DERMOT GREGORY NOTTINGHAM

Fourth Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

Andrew J Steele and Luke W Dixon for the Plaintiff Defendants are self-represented

Judgment:

5 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE C B TAYLOR

[Application for leave to appeal]

This judgment was delivered by me on 5 March 2025 at 3:00pm
pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………. Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Patterson Hopkins (Bill Paterson/Luke Dixon), Auckland, for the Plaintiff
Copy for:
Andrew J Steele, Barrister, Auckland, for the Plaintiff
G Bullock/P R Nottingham/R E McKinney/D G Nottingham, Auckland, (the Defendants/Applicants)

BEERE v BULLOCK [2025] NZHC 387 [5 March 2025]

[1] By judgment dated 31 October 2024, the Court dismissed the defendants’ application for an order for me to recuse myself from the proceedings (the Judgment).1 The defendants, by interlocutory application dated 11 November 2024 are seeking leave the appeal the Judgment. The plaintiff filed a notice of opposition to the application, dated 15 November 2024.

[2]By minute dated 20 December 2024 the Court made the following directions:

(a)The defendants were to file and serve written submissions in support of the application for leave by 24 January 2025;

(b)the plaintiff was to file and serve written submissions in opposition to the application by 7 February 2025;

(c)the application was to be determined on the papers.

[3] The defendants filed submissions in support of the leave to appeal dated 24 January 2025, counsel for the plaintiff filed submissions in opposition dated 7 February 2025 and the defendants filed submissions in reply dated 21 February 2025. The defendants also filed a further affidavit sworn by Phillip Raymond Nottingham, dated 22 January 2025.

Legal principles

[4] No appeal2 lies from any order or decision of the High Court made on an interlocutory application in respect of any civil proceeding unless leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is given by the High Court or by the Court of Appeal following the High Court’s refusal of leave.3

1      Beere v Bullock [2024] NZHC 3174.
2      Except for those appeals provided for under s 56(4) of the Senior Courts Act.
3      Section 56 of the Act.

[5] The relevant principles are set out in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Greendrake v District Court4 where the Court of Appeal identified the following considerations:
(a)a high threshold exists;
(b)the applicant must identify an arguable error of law or fact;
(c)the alleged error should be of general or public importance warranting determination or otherwise of sufficient importance to the applicant to outweigh the lack of general or precedential value;
(d)the circumstances must warrant incurring further delay; and
(e)the ultimate question is whether the interests of justice are served by granting leave.

[6] The Court of Appeal…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Beere v Bullock

Details

AGLC: Beere v Bullock [2025] NZHC 387
Case: [2025] NZHC 387
Decision Date: 5 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the plaintiff Warren Ernest Beere has applied for the court to dismiss an application by the defendants George Bullock, Phillip Raymond Nottingham, Robert Earle McKinney, and Dermot Gregory Nottingham for leave to appeal the court's judgment dismissing their application for the judge to recuse themselves from the proceedings. The defendants have applied for leave to appeal the dismissal of their application for the judge's recusal, arguing that the judge erred in law and fact, and that the appeal is of general or public importance. The plaintiff opposes the application for leave to appeal, arguing that the defendants have not identified any arguable error of law or fact, and that the circumstances do not warrant further delay and the interests of justice are not served by granting leave to appeal.

The court found that the defendants had not identified any arguable error of law or fact, and that the appeal was not of general or public importance. The court found that the defendants were essentially repeating grounds that had already been considered and rejected in the previous application for the judge's recusal. The court found that the circumstances did not warrant further delay, and that granting leave to appeal would not serve the interests of justice. The court dismissed the defendants' application for leave to appeal and ordered that the plaintiff, as the successful party, is entitled to costs on a 2B basis, together with disbursements.

Orders