For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 38/2006 [2006] NZSC 60
BETWEENJUNIOR FARMS LIMITED
Appellant
ANDHAMPTON SECURITIES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
First Respondent
ANDACCENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED
Second Respondent
Court:Blanchard, Tipping and McGrath JJ
Counsel:S P Bryers for Appellant
M J Koppens for Second Respondent
Judgment:16 August 2006
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The applications for leave to appeal by both the appellant and the second respondent are dismissed.
REASONS
[1] Junior Farms Ltd and Accent Management Ltd both seek leave to appeal. We have not been persuaded that either of the proposed appeals is properly within s 13(2) of the Supreme Court Act 2003.
[2] The dispute concerns the amount payable by a purchaser to a vendor under an agreement for sale of land by way of adjustment of price after the actual boundaries and area of the land were known.
[3] Junior Farms expressly admits in its written submissions that no principle of law or matter of general or public importance is involved in its appeal. It argues simply that there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice because, it contends, the decision of the Court of Appeal concerning the calculation of the price was based on inaccurate assumptions.
[4] The miscarriage ground is of limited application in civil cases. It cannot have been intended by the legislature that the Supreme Court, when hearing an appeal in a civil case which has already been the subject of a first, error-correction, appeal (and if coming from an inferior court or tribunal has already been the subject of two or more appeals), is to embark on a further exercise of error correction. That is simply not the role of an ultimate appellate court, as can be seen from the practice and jurisprudence of comparable courts in the common law world.
[5] Rather, the miscarriage ground must in civil appeals be taken to have been intended to enable the Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeal on questions of fact, or on questions of law which are not of general or public importance, in the rare case of a sufficiently apparent error, made or left uncorrected by the Court of Appeal, of such a substantial character that it would be repugnant to justice to allow it to go uncorrected in the particular case.
[6] The factual position in the present case is complicated and the issue raised by the proposed appeal of Junior Farms is capable of differing analyses. We are not persuaded that, if any error exists in the way in which the Court of Appeal determined the matter, it is so apparent and substantial as to bring the appeal within the miscarriage limb of s 13(2). Furthermore, although the amount in dispute is quite large, it is relatively small in comparison to the value overall of the transaction.
[7] The proposed appeal by Accent Management, although put as if it engaged questions of law, is in reality simply an attempt to re-litigate factual contentions.
[8] We are accordingly dismissing both applications.
Solicitors: Martelli McKegg Wells & Cormack, Auckland for Appellant Wynyard Wood, Auckland for Second Respondent
Details
AGLC
Junior Farms Ltd v Hampton Securities Ltd (in liq) [2006] NZSC 60
Case
[2006] NZSC 60
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Junior Farms Limited, the appellant, and Accent Management Limited, the second respondent, brought an appeal against Hampton Securities Limited (in liquidation), the first respondent, in the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The appeal concerned the calculation of the amount payable by the purchaser to the vendor under an agreement for the sale of land. The actual boundaries and area of the land were known at the time of the agreement. Junior Farms sought leave to appeal, arguing that there had been a substantial miscarriage of justice because the Court of Appeal's decision concerning the calculation of the price was based on inaccurate assumptions. Accent Management sought leave to appeal on the basis of an apparent error made by the Court of Appeal in its analysis of the facts.
The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the proposed appeals fell within the scope of section 13(2) of the Supreme Court Act 2003. Specifically, the court had to determine if either party's appeal met the criteria for a miscarriage of justice or if it was simply a matter of error correction. The court had to consider the role of an ultimate appellate court and whether it should embark on a further exercise of error correction in civil cases that have already been the subject of a first appeal. The court also had to examine whether the amount in dispute was significant enough to warrant a review of the Court of Appeal's decision.
The Supreme Court held that neither party's proposed appeal was properly within section 13(2) of the Supreme Court Act 2003. The court noted that the miscarriage ground is of limited application in civil cases and cannot be used for further error correction. Instead, the Court of Appeal's decision should only be reviewed if there was a sufficiently apparent and substantial error that would be repugnant to justice to allow it to go uncorrected in the particular case. The court found that, although the amount in dispute was quite large, it was relatively small in comparison to the value overall of the transaction. The Supreme Court therefore dismissed both applications for leave to appeal.