Payne v Payne

Case [2005] NZSC 52

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 46/2005 [2005] NZSC 52

BETWEEN  ROGER JOHN PAYNE Plaintiff

ANDJEANETTE ROSSLYN PAYNE Respondent

Court:            Blanchard J and Tipping J Counsel:  Applicant in Person Judgment: 28 July 2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

REASONS

[1]      The Supreme Court has no power to hear an appeal from the refusal of the Court of Appeal to recall any of its judgments in which the applicant was refused leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal: Ngahuia Reihana Whanau Trust v Flight (2004) 17 PRNZ 357.

[2]      In  the  case  of  the  judgment  of  17  February  2005,  leave  to  appeal  has previously been refused by this Court.

[3]      There are no exceptional circumstances which would permit the Court to hear the proposed interlocutory appeal relating to MacKenzie J’s minute of 13 April

2005.   Both MacKenzie J and the Court of Appeal regarded the application as an abuse of the process of the Court.  We agree with that view.

[4]      There being no foundation for any substantive appeal, no question of stay can arise.

PAYNE V  PAYNE SC 46/2005 [28 July 2005]

Details
AGLC
Payne v Payne [2005] NZSC 52
Case
[2005] NZSC 52
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Payne v Payne, the plaintiff, Roger John Payne, sought to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal that had previously refused him leave to appeal against a judgment made by MacKenzie J. The respondent, Jeanette Rosslyn Payne, defended the Court of Appeal's decision. The legal issues at hand involved the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the Court of Appeal's refusal to recall any of its judgments, as well as whether there were exceptional circumstances that would allow the Court to entertain an interlocutory appeal in this matter.

The Court examined the precedent set by the case of Ngahuia Reihana Whanau Trust v Flight, which established that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to hear an appeal from the Court of Appeal's refusal of leave to appeal. The Court also considered the view that both MacKenzie J and the Court of Appeal had on the matter, which was that the application was an abuse of the Court's process. The Court found no exceptional circumstances that would permit an interlocutory appeal in this case.

Based on the reasoning provided, the Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The Court concluded that there was no basis for a substantive appeal, and therefore no question of stay could arise. The Supreme Court's decision upheld the earlier decisions of MacKenzie J and the Court of Appeal, maintaining that the application was an abuse of the Court's process.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.