Kaye v Norris Ward McKinnon

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA333/2015
[2021] NZCA 247

BETWEEN	ANTHONY PRATT KAYE AND MORVA KAYE Applicants
AND	NORRIS WARD MCKINNON Respondent

Court:	Miller and Collins JJ
Counsel:	Applicants in person M J Dennett for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	11 June 2021 at 2.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(On Second Recall Application)

The application is declined. The Registrar is to receive no further papers from the applicants in connection with this proceeding.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Miller J)

By judgment dated 6 August 2020 we dismissed a recall application in this appeal.[1] The applicants responded with a second recall application, dated 24 August 2020.
[1]ANTHONY PRATT KAYE & ANOR v NORRIS WARD MCKINNON [2020] NZCA 333.
A second recall application is usually an abuse of process, and this one is no exception. Mr Kaye is simply seeking to relitigate previous decisions. For that reason, the application is declined. There will be no order as to costs.
The Registrar is to receive no further papers from the applicants in connection with this proceeding.

Solicitors:
Kennedys, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the applicants Anthony Pratt Kaye and Morva Kaye sought to recall their earlier appeal against the respondent, Norris Ward McKinnon. The appeal, which was initially dismissed on 6 August 2020, pertained to a dispute that had not been detailed in the provided text. The applicants submitted a second recall application on 24 August 2020, which was subsequently declined by the Court.

The primary legal issue the Court had to decide was whether the second recall application by the applicants constituted an abuse of process. The Court was tasked with determining if the applicants' attempt to relitigate previous decisions was justified under the circumstances. Given the nature of a second recall application, the Court was inclined to view it as an abuse of process, especially if it sought to challenge decisions already made.

The Court, in its judgment on 11 June 2021, ruled that the second recall application was indeed an abuse of process. The Court found that Mr Kaye was simply seeking to relitigate previous decisions, which was not permissible. Consequently, the application was declined. The Court made it clear that there would be no order as to costs and instructed the Registrar to cease receiving any further papers from the applicants related to this proceeding. This decision underscores the Court's stance against repetitive and unwarranted attempts to revisit settled matters.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established