Hill v Māori Trustee

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA622/2017
[2019] NZCA 381

BETWEEN	FREDRICK HILL Applicant
AND	MĀORI TRUSTEE Respondent

Court:	French, Miller and Wild JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in Person C M Reuhman for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	22 August 2019 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(On recall application)

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Miller J)

Mr Hill has moved for recall of this Court’s judgment of 24 June 2019 in which we struck his appeal out for non-payment of security for costs.[1]
[1]Hill v Māori Trustee [2019] NZCA 243.
He has also sought leave of the Supreme Court to appeal, and the Māori Trustee applied for a stay of the recall application pending the Supreme Court decision. The stay application is now redundant, the Supreme Court having very recently refused leave.[2]
[2]Hill v Māori Trustee [2019] NZSC 89.
The grounds on which Mr Hill seeks recall are set out at length in his application. We will not traverse them. They do not affect our reasons for judgment, which were procedural in nature, nor do they satisfy the criteria for recall.[3] The merits of his application for a waiver of security have been examined by this Court and he was given ample opportunity to pay. His appeal is at an end.
[3]Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (HC) at 633; and Erwood v Maxted [2010] NZCA 93, (2010) 20 PRNZ 466 at [23].
The application is dismissed. The Registrar may not receive any further recall applications for filing without leave of a Judge.

Solicitors:
Te Tumu Paeroa, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hill v Māori Trustee, Fredrick Hill sought to recall a Court of Appeal judgment that had dismissed his appeal due to non-payment of security for costs. The Court of Appeal, comprising French, Miller, and Wild JJ, considered the recall application, which was dismissed. Hill also applied to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal, but this application was refused. The reasons for the dismissal of Hill's recall application were grounded in procedural matters. The Court found that Hill's grounds for recall did not meet the criteria necessary for recall of a judgment. The Court highlighted that the decision to strike the appeal was procedural and not substantive, and Hill had ample opportunity to address the security for costs issue.

The legal issues that the Court had to decide were primarily concerned with whether the grounds for recall were sufficient and whether the procedural decision to strike the appeal for non-payment of security for costs was justifiable. The Court noted that the recall criteria were stringent and required Hill to demonstrate that there were exceptional circumstances warranting a reconsideration of the original decision. However, the Court found that Hill's arguments did not meet the required standard. The Court also emphasised that Hill had multiple opportunities to pay the required security for costs and had failed to do so, which justified the dismissal of his appeal. The Court concluded that the procedural decision to strike the appeal was appropriate given the circumstances.

The Court's reasoning was that the application for recall did not satisfy the stringent criteria for such applications. The Court was clear that the dismissal of the appeal was based on procedural grounds, specifically the non-payment of security for costs. Hill's recall application did not challenge the substantive merits of the original decision but rather sought to revisit the procedural matter. The Court found that Hill's arguments did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that warranted a recall. The Court also noted that Hill had ample opportunity to address the security for costs issue but failed to do so, reinforcing the validity of the original decision. Consequently, the Court dismissed the recall application, and no further recall applications could be filed without leave of a Judge.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established