Jones v New Zealand Bloodstock Finance and Leasing Limited

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 100/2022
[2023] NZSC 158

BETWEEN	GREGORY JOHN JONES Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCK FINANCE AND LEASING LIMITED Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Williams and Kós JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person F A King for Respondent
Judgment:	8 December 2023

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The second application for recall is dismissed.

BThe Registrar is directed not to accept for filing any further applications in relation to this matter.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

This is a second application for recall of the judgment of this Court delivered on 2 August 2023 (declining leave to appeal).[1]
[1]Jones v New Zealand Bloodstock Finance and Leasing Ltd [2023] NZSC 98.
Other orders are sought, including for “stay of appeal”, stay of execution and oral hearing of the applicant’s arguments about recusal. It proves unnecessary to address these latter matters; as a matter of jurisdiction, they hang upon the renewed application for recall.
As this Court made abundantly clear in its decision on the applicant’s first application for recall, a recall application cannot be used to relitigate the reasons for refusing leave.[2]
[2]Jones v New Zealand Bloodstock Finance and Leasing Ltd [2023] NZSC 133 at [10].
We regret to have to say that this renewed recall application is a further instance of the applicant flouting that restriction. The arguments presented seek to relitigate reasons given previously in our decision declining leave. Nothing raised by the applicant meets the threshold for a recall application to be granted, and it must therefore be dismissed.[3]
[3]Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633; and Saxmere Company Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Ltd (No 2) [2009] NZSC 122, [2010] 1 NZLR 76 at [2].
Given no substantial response was required of the respondent we make no order for costs.

Result

The second application for recall is dismissed.
The Registrar is directed not to accept for filing any further applications in relation to this matter.

Solicitors:
McKenna King Dempster, Hamilton for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Gregory John Jones applied for a recall of the Court's decision dated 2 August 2023, which declined leave to appeal. The respondent, New Zealand Bloodstock Finance and Leasing Limited, was represented by F A King. The Court, consisting of Glazebrook, Williams, and Kós JJ, dismissed the second application for recall. The applicant also sought a stay of appeal, stay of execution, and an oral hearing regarding the recusal of the Court members, but these matters were deemed unnecessary as they depended on the outcome of the recall application.

The legal issue before the Court was whether the recall application could be granted. The Court reiterated that recall applications are not a means to relitigate the reasons for refusing leave to appeal. The Court found that the applicant's arguments sought to revisit the reasons given in the earlier decision, which did not meet the threshold for a recall application. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The Court held that the applicant had disregarded the Court's previous ruling that a recall application cannot be used to relitigate reasons for refusing leave to appeal. The Court found no valid basis for granting the recall and dismissed the application. The Court also directed that no further applications be accepted in relation to this matter. The Court made no order for costs as no substantial response was required from the respondent.

The Court dismissed the second application for recall and directed the Registrar not to accept any further applications in relation to this matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established