Hill v Maori Trustee
[2019] NZCA 600
•29 November 2019 at 10.00 am
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA |
| CA622/2017 [2019] NZCA 600 |
| BETWEEN | FREDRICK HILL |
| AND | MĀORI TRUSTEE |
| Court: | French, Miller and Brown JJ |
Counsel: | Applicant in person |
Judgment: | 29 November 2019 at 10.00 am |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
A Leave to accept Mr Hill’s recall application for filing is granted.
B The recall application is dismissed.
C No further recall applications may be filed in this proceeding.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Miller J)
This judgment addresses Mr Hill’s application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 24 June 2019 striking out his appeal for non-payment of security.[1] It is his second recall application. His first was dismissed in a judgment delivered on 22 August 2019.[2] The Court found the application wholly without merit and ordered that the Registrar not receive any further recall applications for filing without leave of a Judge.
[1]Hill v Māori Trustee [2019] NZCA 243.
[2]Hill v Māori Trustee [2019] NZCA 381.
The second recall application was actually filed before judgment had been delivered on the first recall application. Mr Hill filed it because the Supreme Court had dismissed his application for leave to appeal from this Court’s judgment striking out his appeal.[3] He was advised that his second recall application might be treated as an application for leave to file the application.
[3]Hill v Māori Trustee [2019] NZSC 89.
Rule 8A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 provides:
8A Recalling or reopening judgment
(1)The Court may, on an interlocutory application or on its own initiative, recall or reopen a judgment given in writing or orally, at any time before a formal record of it is drawn up and sealed.
(2)Neither the parties nor their representatives have a right to appear before the Court on an application for a judgment to be recalled or reopened, unless the Court otherwise directs.
We accept the application for filing so that it may be disposed of under r 8A on the Court’s own initiative. No hearing is required.
Mr Hill’s application is a straight-forward abuse of process. There are no grounds for recall; he seeks rather to litigate his appeal as if the Court had never struck it out for non-payment of security. The Court has previously remarked on his procedural delays and the absence of underlying merit.[4] Further, he is now bankrupt and his estate is being administered by the Official Assignee, who does not support the application.
[4]In [2018] NZCA 280. The bankruptcy proceeding followed unsuccessful appeals on the merits.
The recall application is dismissed accordingly. We further order, in exercise of the Court’s power to prevent abuse of its processes, that no further recall applications may be filed in this proceeding.[5]
[5]See Waterhouse v Contractors Bonding Ltd [2013] NZSC 89, [2014] 1 NZLR 91 at [30] citing Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529 (HL) at 536.
Solicitors:
Tu Tumu Paeroa, Wellington for Respondent
0
4
0