Houghton v Saunders

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 6/2021
[2021] NZSC 92

BETWEEN	ERIC MESERVE HOUGHTON Applicant
AND	TIMOTHY ERNEST CORBETT SAUNDERS, SAMUEL JOHN MAGILL, JOHN MICHAEL FEENEY, CRAIG EDGEWORTH HORROCKS, PETER DAVID HUNTER, PETER THOMAS AND JOAN WITHERS First Respondents CREDIT SUISSE PRIVATE EQUITY INCORPORATED Second Respondent CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON ASIAN MERCHANT PARTNERS LP Third Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Williams JJ
Counsel:	A J Gavigan as Applicant A R Galbraith QC, D J Cooper and M C Harris for First Respondents (other than Mr Magill and Ms Withers) T C Weston QC and M C Harris for Mr Magill B D Gray QC and A E Ferguson for Ms Withers J B M Smith QC, A S Olney and C J Curran for Second and Third Respondents
Judgment:	28 July 2021

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for recall of this Court’s recall judgment of 2 July 2021 (Houghton v Saunders [2021] NZSC 76) is dismissed.

B There is no order as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

On 2 July 2021, we issued a judgment[1] dismissing Mr Gavigan’s application for recall of our judgment dismissing Mr Houghton’s application for leave to appeal.[2]
[1]Houghton v Saunders [2021] NZSC 76. The application also sought a stay of the High Court costs proceeding and leave to commence a fresh application for leave to appeal. For brevity, we will call this judgment the “recall judgment”.
[2]Houghton v Saunders [2021] NZSC 38.
Mr Gavigan now applies for recall of the recall judgment. He takes issue with this sentence in that judgment: “The allegations [made in Mr Gavigan’s application] are not new and are not able to be resurrected after the final resolution of the proceeding”. He asks that the recall judgment be re-issued with that sentence deleted.
There is no basis for recall of the recall judgment.[3] We do not intend to engage in a debate about the sentence in issue: we simply refer Mr Gavigan to the submissions of the respondents in relation to the earlier recall application and the footnoted references in those submissions.
[3]The grounds upon which a judgment may be recalled were summarised in Craig v Williams [2019] NZSC 60 at [10], citing Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633.
The application for recall is dismissed.
The respondents made brief submissions in relation to costs. But these were unsolicited, and the Court did not require them in order to deal with the application. In those circumstances, we make no order as to costs in relation to the present application.

Solicitors:

Gilbert Walker, Auckland for First Respondents
Russell McVeagh, Wellington for Second and Third Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Houghton v Saunders was heard by the Supreme Court of New Zealand, with Glazebrook, O’Regan, and Williams JJ presiding. The dispute involved Eric Meserve Houghton as the applicant and several other parties as respondents, including Timothy Ernest Corbett Saunders, Samuel John Magill, John Michael Feeney, Craig Edgeworth Horrocks, Peter David Hunter, Peter Thomas, and Joan Withers as first respondents, Credit Suisse Private Equity Incorporated as the second respondent, and Credit Suisse First Boston Asian Merchant Partners LP as the third respondent. The applicant, Mr Houghton, sought recall of the Court's previous judgment dismissing his application for leave to appeal, as well as a stay of the High Court costs proceeding and permission to commence a fresh application for leave to appeal.

The legal issues before the Court centred on the validity of the recall application and whether the specific sentence in the recall judgment was sufficient grounds for its reconsideration. The applicant's counsel, A J Gavigan, challenged the sentence in the recall judgment that stated the allegations in the application were not new and could not be resurrected after the final resolution of the proceeding. The Court needed to determine whether the recall judgment could be amended or re-issued as requested by the applicant.

The Court found no basis for recalling the recall judgment. They did not engage in a debate about the specific sentence in question but referred the applicant to the submissions made by the respondents in relation to the earlier recall application and the footnoted references therein. The Court noted that the grounds for recalling a judgment were limited, as summarised in Craig v Williams, and did not find any error in the recall judgment. Therefore, the application for recall was dismissed, and no order was made regarding costs since the submissions made by the respondents were unsolicited.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established