De Vries v Bartercard Exchange Limited

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 108/2017
[2018] NZSC 2

BETWEEN	ANTHONY HARRY DE VRIES Applicant
AND	BARTERCARD EXCHANGE LIMITED Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, OʼRegan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person M W Anderson for Respondent
Judgment:	2 February 2018

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks a recall of our judgment of 11 December 2017 dismissing his application for leave to appeal from a decision of Asher J in a minute issued on 6 September 2017.[1]
[1]de Vries v Bartercard Exchange Ltd [2017] NZSC 186.
The application for recall is in substance primarily an attempt to re‑argue the application for leave. In addition, the applicant questions the order for costs on the leave application.
Nothing has been advanced which would warrant a recall of our decision not to grant leave. The order for costs reflected the outcome of the leave application.
The application for recall is accordingly dismissed.

Solicitors:
Thomas Dewar Sziranyi Letts, Lower Hutt for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the case of De Vries v Bartercard Exchange Limited involved Anthony Harry de Vries, who was the applicant, and Bartercard Exchange Limited, the respondent. The applicant sought a recall of the Supreme Court's judgment dated 11 December 2017, which had dismissed his application for leave to appeal a decision made by Asher J on 6 September 2017. The appeal pertained to an application for leave to appeal a decision of Asher J in a minute issued on 6 September 2017. The applicant was appearing in person, while the respondent was represented by M W Anderson.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether there were sufficient grounds to warrant a recall of the previous decision dismissing the applicant's leave to appeal. The court was also tasked with reviewing the order for costs on the leave application. The applicant argued that the recall should be granted as he believed new evidence had emerged which could potentially change the outcome of the case. However, the court found that no new evidence or arguments had been presented that would warrant a reconsideration of their previous decision. The court also noted that the costs order was a reflection of the outcome of the leave application and, as such, remained valid.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for recall, reaffirming the earlier decision that there were no grounds for the applicant to appeal the decision of Asher J. The court held that the applicant had not provided any new evidence or arguments that would necessitate a recall of the previous judgment. Additionally, the costs order on the leave application was upheld as it remained appropriate given the outcome of the leave application. The Supreme Court's decision was final and no further appeal was possible on the matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established