Pranfield Holdings Ltd v The Minister of Fisheries

[2008] NZSC 86

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 47/2008

[2008] NZSC 86

BETWEENPRANFIELD HOLDINGS LIMITED

Applicant

ANDTHE MINISTER OF FISHERIES

First Respondent

ANDTHE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF FISHERIES

Second Respondent

ANDTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES/MINISTRY OF FISHERIES

Third Respondent

SC 47/2008

BETWEENUNITED FISHERIES LIMITED

Applicant

ANDTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES AND THE MINISTRY OF FISHERIES

First Respondent

ANDTHE MINISTER OF FISHERIES

Second Respondent

ANDTHE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF FISHERIES

Third Respondent

Court:Blanchard, Tipping and McGrath JJ

Counsel:T J Castle and K G Reid for Applicants

D B Collins QC and P A McCarthy for Respondents

Judgment:22 October 2008 

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A        The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

BThe applicants are to pay the respondents costs in the sum of $2500.00 plus disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. 

REASONS

[1]       The applicants seek leave to appeal on the following causes of action, each of which was rejected in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal:  misfeasance in public office; breach of statutory duty; and negligence.  There are two other grounds upon which the applicants seek leave if they are successful in obtaining leave on any of the three grounds just referred to.

[2]       We do not consider any point of general or public importance arises in relation to the misfeasance ground.  In that respect, there are concurrent factual findings below.  We are not persuaded that it is necessary in the interests of justice to give leave for a third, largely factual, examination of this cause of action.

[3]       The other two causes of action are in theory capable of raising matters of general and public importance.  We are satisfied, however, that the applicants’ chances of success upon them are so slight that it would not be appropriate to grant leave.  Depending on the statutory context the legal issues which the applicants seek to raise might well justify the grant of leave in a case with more factual support for the allegations made.  But in this case we are satisfied that it would not be in the interests of justice to grant leave because of the lack of any real factual support for the legal allegations which the applicants seek to raise in this Court. 

Solicitors:
Goodman Steven Tavendale & Reid, Christchurch for Applicants
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents