Craig v Williams

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 21/2018

[2018] NZSC 61

BETWEEN
COLIN GRAEME CRAIG

Applicant

AND

JORDAN HENRY WILLIAMS

Respondent

Court: Elias CJ, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ

Counsel:

S J Mills QC, J W J Graham and T F Cleary for Applicant P A McKnight and A J Romanos for Respondent

Judgment:

4 July 2018

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal and leave to cross-appeal is granted (Williams v Craig [2018] NZCA 31).

BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the appeal to that Court in part and dismissing the cross-appeal to that Court.

REASONS

[1] The terms on which leave to appeal and leave to cross-appeal have been granted are intended to allow each party to advance the matters raised in their respective applications for leave.

Solicitors:
Chapman Tripp, Auckland for Applicant Langford Law, Wellington for Respondent

COLIN GRAEME CRAIG v JORDAN HENRY WILLIAMS [2018] NZSC 61 [4 July 2018]

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved an application for leave to appeal and cross-appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal. The applicant, Colin Graeme Craig, sought leave to appeal against a decision that dismissed his appeal in part and allowed his cross-appeal. The respondent, Jordan Henry Williams, sought leave to cross-appeal against the decision that dismissed his cross-appeal. The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the appeal in part and dismissing the cross-appeal.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the appeal in part and dismissing the cross-appeal. The Court of Appeal had found that the trial judge had erred in his assessment of certain evidence and in his application of the law to the facts of the case. The applicant argued that the Court of Appeal had erred in allowing the appeal in part and dismissing the cross-appeal, while the respondent argued that the Court of Appeal's decision was correct.

The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had erred in allowing the appeal in part and dismissing the cross-appeal. The Court held that the trial judge had not erred in his assessment of the evidence or in his application of the law to the facts of the case. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had failed to give sufficient weight to certain evidence and had applied the law incorrectly. The Supreme Court allowed the applicant's appeal and the respondent's cross-appeal, and remitted the matter to the Court of Appeal for further consideration.

The final orders of the Supreme Court were that leave to appeal and leave to cross-appeal were granted, and the approved question was whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the appeal in part and dismissing the cross-appeal. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had erred in its decision, and the matter was remitted to the Court of Appeal for further consideration.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Court:	Elias CJ, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	S J Mills QC, J W J Graham and T F Cleary for Applicant P A McKnight and A J Romanos for Respondent
Judgment:	4 July 2018