Peter Gerard Stockman v New Zealand Association of Counsellors Incorporated

NOTE: ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THIRD PARTY REMAINS IN FORCE.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 2/2016
[2016] NZSC 18

BETWEEN	PETER GERARD STOCKMAN Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND ASSOCIATION OF COUNSELLORS INCORPORATED Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person C Heaton for Respondent
Judgment:	29 February 2016

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The respondent, the New Zealand Association of Counsellors Inc, filed an appeal against a decision of Peters J in which the Judge upheld an application for judicial review by the applicant, Mr Stockman.[1] The application was against a decision by the Association to exclude certain evidence that was relevant to a complaint made by Mr Stockman to the Association against another counsellor.
[1]Stockman v New Zealand Association of Counsellors Inc [2013] NZHC 2267.
Before hearing, the Association abandoned its appeal. Mr Stockman then applied for an order of indemnity costs against the Association and sought leave to file additional evidence to support his claim. In the alternative, Mr Stockman sought an award of costs for a standard appeal. The Court of Appeal declined the applications to adduce further evidence and for indemnity costs, but awarded Mr Stockman costs of $4,460 for standard appeal, reflecting the fact that he was represented by counsel in the appeal up until the time of its abandonment.[2]
[2]New Zealand Association of Counsellors Inc v Stockman [2015] NZCA 542 (Randerson, French and Winkelmann JJ).
Mr Stockman then applied to the Court of Appeal to recall its judgment, on the basis that the Court had not been impartial in considering his applications because he was, by that stage, acting for himself. Mr Stockman’s recall application was declined.[3] Mr Stockman now asks this Court to give leave to appeal against that decision. The Association has advised that it does not wish to be heard on the application and abides the decision of the Court.
[3]New Zealand Association of Counsellors Inc v Stockman [2015] NZCA 629 (Randerson, French and Winkelmann JJ).
We are not satisfied that it necessary in the interests of justice that we hear and determine this appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal on Mr Stockman’s recall application involves no issue of general or public importance, nor is there any appearance of a miscarriage of justice. The same is true of the Court of Appeal’s decision on costs which Mr Stockman sought to recall.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. As the respondent made no submissions, we make no order for costs.

Solicitors:
Morrison Kent, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Peter Gerard Stockman, filed an application for leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal, which had declined his applications to recall a judgment and to be granted indemnity costs. The appeal was against the New Zealand Association of Counsellors Incorporated, which had previously appealed a decision of Peters J that was in favour of Stockman. The appeal by the Association was subsequently abandoned. Stockman, who was acting in person, sought leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision on the basis that he had not been fairly treated because he was no longer represented by counsel. The Association did not wish to be heard on the application.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the appeal should be heard on the basis that it was in the interests of justice to do so. In determining this, the Court had to consider whether the decision of the Court of Appeal involved any issue of general or public importance, or whether there was any appearance of a miscarriage of justice. The Court also had to consider whether the refusal to recall the judgment or to grant indemnity costs involved any such issues.

The Court found that there was no issue of general or public importance in the Court of Appeal’s decision and that there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice. The Court held that the decision on the recall application did not involve any such issues, and that it was not in the interests of justice for the appeal to proceed. The Court declined to grant leave to appeal and made no order for costs as the Association had not made any submissions.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed and there is no order for costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established