Peterson v Mills

[2021] NZCA 424

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA35/2021
 [2021] NZCA 424

BETWEEN	CARL JAMES PETERSON First Applicant LYNETTE JOY MILLS Second Applicant PETERSON/MILLS PARTNERSHIP Third Applicant
AND	GRAHAM HOWARD MILLS Respondent

Counsel:	First, Second and Third Applicants in person No appearance for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	31 August 2021 at 2.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF MILLER J
(Review of Registrar’s Decision)

The application for review is granted.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

1. The Registrar declined to accept an application for recall on the ground that the Court’s judgment had been sealed.  This judgment responds to an application for review of that decision. 

2. The Registrar correctly noted that r 8A(1) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 permits recall before a judgment before the formal record has been drawn up and sealed.  The judgment was sealed on 29 June 2021 and the application for recall was not received until 22 July 2021.

3. There is, however, a question whether the Court’s inherent powers extend to recalling a judgment which has been sealed.[1]

   [1]See Lyon v R [2019] NZCA 311, [2019] 3 NZLR 421 at [32]; and Andrew Beck and others (eds) McGechan on Procedure (online loose-leaf ed, Thomson Reuters) at [HR11.9.01(7)] as to the position in the High Court.

4. That being so, the recall application should be accepted for filing and referred to the panel which delivered the Court’s judgment.

5. The application for review is granted.

Solicitors:
Nil