Herron v Wallace

[2016] NZHC 2426

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-1806 [2016] NZHC 2426

BETWEEN

STUART WALTON HERRON

Plaintiff

AND

WAYNE ANDREW WALLACE First Defendant

SHADES OF AUTUMN LIMITED Second Defendant

BELMONT LIFESTYLE VILLAGE LIMITED

Third defendant

Hearing:	21 September 2016
Counsel:	CT Patterson and DW Grove for plaintiff JE Hodder QC and CF Fife for first and third defendants
Judgment:	12 October 2016

JUDGMENT OF FAIRE J [On application for stay/recall]

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 October 2016 at 2:30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors:           Skeates Law, Auckland (G Skeates) Chapman Tripp, Auckland

Herron v Wallace [2016] NZHC 2426 [12 October 2016]

Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................[1] The applications .....................................................................................................[2] The Court’s jurisdiction to recall its own (sealed) judgment and order a

rehearing.................................................................................................................[4]

Appeal and new proceedings .................................................................................[7] Recall and rehearing application ..........................................................................[10] The defendants’ submissions................................................................................ [11] The plaintiff’s submissions ..................................................................................[13]

Does the Court have jurisdiction to recall or rescind a perfected judgment? ......[16] Do the circumstances of the case require the Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction?          [35]

Result....................................................................................................................[43] Application for stay pending appeal ....................................................................[44]

The application analysed  [49]

Orders ...................................................................................................................[52] Costs .....................................................................................................................[53]

Introduction

[1]      On  27  May  2016,  I  delivered  a  reserved  judgment  in  which  I  entered judgment for the plaintiff against the first and third defendants for $966,531.93.1    I reserved costs and gave directions covering that aspect of the matter.

The applications

[2]      The first and third defendants apply by an amended application for orders that:

1      Herron v Wallace [2016] NZHC 1129.

(a)       My judgment be recalled or rescinded in part;

(b)A new trial be ordered on certain findings and issues relating to the proposed  Queenstown  apartments,  known  as  Apartment 401  and Apartment 403; and

(c)      A new trial or, alternatively, the applicant’s new proceeding (founded on the issue of the Herron/Bryers settlement relating to a proposed free style apartment identified as Apartment 403), be the subject of directions for an expedited trial.

[3]      In addition, the first and third defendants seek orders that execution of my judgment be stayed pending:

(a)       Either determination by the Court of Appeal of the first and third

defendants’ appeal against the judgment; or

(b)A rehearing or retrial of the judgment of 27 May 2016 following its recall.

The  Court’s  jurisdiction  to  recall  its  own  (sealed)  judgment  and  order  a

rehearing

[4]      Counsel are agreed that, in summary, the Court’s jurisdiction to consider a recall of its judgment and order a rehearing is covered by the following matters of principle:

(a)      The Court has an inherent jurisdiction to act effectively, in particular by ensuring that its processes are used to secure justice and not misused  to  result  in  injustice.    The  inherent  jurisdiction  may  be

invoked whenever the justice of the case so requires;2

2      Taylor v Attorney-General [1975] 2 NZLR 675 (CA) at 680 and 682; R v Moke [1996] 1 NZLR

263 at 267.

(b)This jurisdiction permits limited exceptions to the finality of judgment principle, subject…