Derek Nicholas Blackwell and Charles Basil Blackwell as Executors and Trustees of the estate of Ross Winston Blackwell v Edmonds Judd

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 30/2015
[2016] NZSC 65

BETWEEN	DEREK NICHOLAS BLACKWELL AND CHARLES BASIL BLACKWELL AS EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF ROSS WINSTON BLACKWELL Appellants
AND	EDMONDS JUDD Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	C T Gudsell QC for Appellants M R Ring QC and J R Parker for Respondent
Judgment:	15 June 2016

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for recall is dismissed.
B Costs of $1,000 are awarded to the respondent.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS
(Given by Glazebrook J)

On 10 May 2016 the appellants filed a memorandum indicating that a dispute had arisen between the parties as to the interpretation of [87] of this Court’s judgment of 22 April 2016. They sought clarification of the meaning of that paragraph, which reads:[1]
The appellants, in their statement of claim, sought interest on the judgment sum pursuant to the Judicature Act 1908. We consider it appropriate to award interest at five per cent (the prescribed rate pursuant to s 87(3) of the Judicature Act) on the judgment sum from the date of settlement by the Chicks of the purchase of the farm.
[1]Blackwell v Edmonds Judd [2016] NZSC 40.
By minute of O’Regan J of 16 May 2016, the Court said that it intended to treat the memorandum of 10 May 2016 as an application to recall the judgment. The respondent was given the opportunity to file submissions on the application and it was indicated that the Court would deal with the matter on the papers.
The appellants interpret the words “from the date of settlement by the Chicks of the purchase of the farm” as referring to the date the purchase would have been settled but for the High Court proceedings: 30 April 2010. They submit that this conclusion follows from the context of the judgment as a whole and in particular [84]–[85] of the judgment. It also follows from the fact that they did not receive the judgment sum of $1m on 30 April 2010 as they would have done in the absence of the respondent’s negligence.
The respondent interprets the words “from the date of settlement” as referring to the date on which settlement of the transaction was formally completed. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that paragraph [87] of the judgment is clear and unambiguous. There is therefore no reason to recall the judgment.
We accept the respondent’s submission. The wording of the judgment is clear and it has the meaning the respondent contends. We comment that the appellants retained ownership of the farm until the transaction was actually settled and that, as the respondent points out, no submissions on interest were made at the hearing of the appeal.
For the above reasons the application for recall is dismissed. Costs of $1,000 are awarded to the respondent.

Solicitors:
Brent Kelly & Associates, Te Awamutu for Appellants
Morrison Kent, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, Derek Nicholas Blackwell and Charles Basil Blackwell, as executors and trustees of the estate of Ross Winston Blackwell, filed an application for recall of the Supreme Court's judgment against the respondent, Edmonds Judd. The dispute centred on the interpretation of paragraph [87] of the Court’s judgment of 22 April 2016, particularly the phrase “from the date of settlement by the Chicks of the purchase of the farm.” The appellants argued that this referred to the date the purchase would have been settled but for the High Court proceedings, which was 30 April 2010. Conversely, the respondent interpreted the phrase to mean the actual date of settlement of the transaction. The Court was required to determine the correct interpretation of this phrase and whether the judgment should be recalled based on this interpretation.

The Court, through Glazebrook J, examined the wording of the judgment and found that it was clear and unambiguous, supporting the respondent's interpretation. The Court noted that the wording explicitly referred to the formal completion date of the transaction. The appellants' argument was based on the context of the judgment as a whole and their contention that they did not receive the judgment sum of $1 million on the date of the would-be settlement due to the respondent's negligence. However, the Court found no basis to recall the judgment as the wording was clear and unambiguous. Additionally, the Court observed that the appellants retained ownership of the farm until the transaction was actually settled and that no submissions on interest were made at the hearing of the appeal.

The Court dismissed the application for recall and awarded costs of $1,000 to the respondent. The Court found that the respondent's interpretation of the phrase was correct and that the judgment should stand as it was. The Court's decision was based on the clear and unambiguous wording of the judgment and the lack of any basis to alter it. The costs were awarded to the respondent due to the nature of the application, which the Court deemed unnecessary.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established