Bostik NZ Ltd v Stephen Graeme Lockwood
[2010] NZSC 150
•8 December 2010
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND |
| SC 102/2010 [2010] NZSC 150 |
| BETWEEN BOSTIK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED |
| AND STEPHEN GRAHAM LOCKWOOD AND WADHAM GOODMAN TRUSTEES LIMITED AS TRUSTEES OF THE ISLAND TRUST |
| Court: Blanchard, McGrath and William Young JJ |
| Counsel: A C Challis and R J Scott for Applicant |
| Judgment: 8 December 2010 |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
REASONS
The Court of Appeal[1] concluded that the reasons given by the High Court[2] were inadequate. The applicant is not challenging that decision. Rather, it argues that the Court of Appeal then erred in the way it then went about remedying that situation.
[1]Lockwood v Bostik New Zealand Ltd [2010] NZCA 436, per O’Regan, Priestley and Ronald Young JJ.
[2]Lockwood v Bostik New Zealand Ltd HC Auckland CIV-2006-404-7004, 20 March 2007 per Andrews J.
We see nothing wrong with the approach taken by the Court of Appeal. It has dealt with those issues which it has felt able to resolve and remitted the balance to the trial court for resolution taking into account the decisions that it has made on appeal. There is no error in general principle in such an approach. The particular matters which have been determined are peculiar to the case. None of the decisions made in respect of them appears obviously wrong so that it can fairly be said that there may have been a substantial miscarriage of justice. The criteria for leave are not met.
We add that we have not found it necessary to consider whether the Court of Appeal was correct in the view it took concerning the circumstances in which it has power to order a retrial in a civil matter.[3]
[3] At [41]–[43].
Solicitors:
McElroys, Auckland for Applicant
Lee Salmon Long, Aucklnad for Respondents
0
1
0