Halse v Rangiura Trust Board - [2024] NZSC 176

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 72/2024
[2024] NZSC 176

BETWEEN	ALLAN GEOFFREY HALSE Applicant
AND	RANGIURA TRUST BOARD First Respondent
AND	NORRIS WARD MCKINNON LIMITED Second Respondent
AND	SAMUEL WALLACE HOOD Third Respondent
AND	ERIN REBEKAH ANDERSON Fourth Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person H M Twomey for First Respondent V S Wethey and R H Anderson for Second, Third and Fourth Respondents
Judgment:	19 December 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

On 24 October 2024 this Court (Glazebrook, Ellen France and Miller JJ) dismissed Mr Halse’s application for leave to appeal.[1] Mr Halse now makes an application for recall of that decision on the basis that Miller J, when in the Court of Appeal, had undertaken case management functions in a related application and had been the subject of an undetermined recusal application in that Court.[2]

Background

[1]Halse v Rangiura Trust Board [2024] NZSC 143 [Leave decision].

[2]Mr Halse had applied to the Court of Appeal for the recusal of Miller J asking that he not hear and decide further matters related to the case. By minute of 31 January 2024, Cooper P said that, as Miller J had been appointed to this Court, the recusal application was moot and did not need to be determined: Halse v Employment Court of New Zealand CA235/2023, 31 January 2024 at [2]–[3].

This Court’s judgment of 24 October 2024 dismissed Mr Halse’s application for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal upholding a High Court decision (Moore J) to make an order under s 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016.[3] That order prevents Mr Halse from commencing or continuing civil proceedings on the matter before the High Court Judge or any related matter in any senior court, another court, or tribunal.[4]
[3]H v RPW [2024] NZCA 263 (Wylie, Lang and Campbell JJ).
[4]Halse v Rangiura Trust Board [2023] NZHC 1519 at [118].
The background to the related proceedings in the Court of Appeal, in respect of which the application was made for Miller J to recuse himself, is set out by the Court of Appeal in its judgment staying those proceedings pending either the grant of leave to continue the proceedings under s 169 of the Senior Courts Act or the expiry or setting aside of the order made by Moore J on 19 June 2023:[5]
Mr Halse has applied to this Court under s 213 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the ERA) for judicial review of a decision of the Employment Court dated 13 September 2022.^[[6]] In that decision, the Employment Court struck out Mr Halse’s application for judicial review of a number of decisions made by the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority). In general terms, the impugned Authority decisions were made in the context of an ongoing dispute involving Mr Halse and the Rangiura Charitable Trust (the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Halse v Rangiura Trust Board and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NZSC 176
Decision Date: 19 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an application for recall by Allan Geoffrey Halse against the Rangiura Trust Board and others. Halse sought to overturn the dismissal of his application for leave to appeal a decision that had upheld an order preventing him from continuing civil proceedings in relation to a dispute with the Rangiura Charitable Trust. The primary legal issue before the court was whether there were grounds to recall the earlier decision dismissing Halse's application for leave to appeal. The court needed to determine if the involvement of Justice Miller, who had previously handled a related case in the Court of Appeal, warranted recusal or if it provided a valid reason to recall the initial decision.

The court examined the recusal application that had been made to the Court of Appeal and the subsequent decision to stay the related proceedings. It found that the case management functions undertaken by Justice Miller in the related proceeding did not justify his recusal from the current appeal. Additionally, the court concluded that recalling the leave judgment would be futile, as the application for leave to appeal would still be dismissed. The court reaffirmed that there was no realistic prospect that it would reach a different conclusion on the matter.

The Supreme Court dismissed Halse's application for recall. The court held that there were no grounds to recall the earlier decision dismissing Halse's application for leave to appeal. The court also noted that there would be no order for costs as the respondents were not required to file submissions in response to the recall application.

Orders