Easton v Wellington City Council

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA16/2024
[2024] NZCA 306

BETWEEN	BENJAMIN MORLAND EASTON Applicant
AND	WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL Respondent

Court:	French, Palmer and Cooke JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person K A Lee and A M Cotterill for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	10 July 2024 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French J)

On 22 May 2024 this Court delivered a judgment declining to grant Mr Easton leave to bring a second appeal.[1]
[1]Easton v Wellington City Council [2024] NZCA 171.
He has now applied for a recall of that judgment. The application is opposed by the respondent.
In our view the application falls well short of the recognised criteria for the recall of a judgment.[2] It is simply an attempt to relitigate the same issues.

Result

[2]Saxmere Company Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Ltd (No 2) [2009] NZSC 122, [2010] 1 NZLR 76 at [2], citing Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633. The grounds for recall set out in Saxmere Company Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Ltd (No 2) apply equally in the criminal jurisdiction: see Uhrle v R [2020] NZSC 62, [2020] 1 NZLR 286 at [29]; and Jolley v R [2022] NZSC 150, [2022] 1 NZLR 595 at [12]–[17].

The application is accordingly declined.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered an application by Benjamin Morland Easton for a recall of a previous judgment that had declined his leave to bring a second appeal against the Wellington City Council. The appeal involved the refusal of Easton's application to bring a second appeal concerning a matter that had already been the subject of a prior appeal. The Wellington City Council opposed the application, arguing that it did not meet the criteria for recall as established by previous judicial decisions. Counsel for Easton appeared in person, while the Council was represented by K A Lee and A M Cotterill.

The legal issue before the Court was whether Easton's application for recall of the judgment met the established criteria for such a recall. The criteria for recall, as articulated in previous cases such as Saxmere Company Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Ltd (No 2), require that the application not simply be an attempt to relitigate the same issues. Easton's application was assessed against these criteria to determine if it met the necessary threshold for reconsideration.

The Court found that Easton's application did not meet the criteria for recall as it amounted to an attempt to relitigate the same issues that had already been decided. The Court referred to previous decisions such as Saxmere Company Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Ltd (No 2) and Uhrle v R, which outline the stringent requirements for recalling a judgment. The Court concluded that Easton's application fell short of the criteria necessary for recall and therefore declined the application. The Court's reasoning was based on the principle that recall should only be granted if it is justified under the established legal framework.

As a result of the Court's decision, the application for recall was declined, and the earlier judgment denying leave to bring a second appeal was upheld. The Court emphasized that the application did not satisfy the criteria for recall, and thus the original decision remained in effect.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established