Reid v Castleton-Reid - [2019] NZCA 452

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA266/2018
[2019] NZCA 452

BETWEEN	ROSS RONAYNE REID Appellant
AND	BARRY ROSS LAURENCE CASTLETON-REID Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Court:	Courtney, Venning and Dunningham JJ
Counsel:	S L Abdale for Appellant M J Matthew for Respondent
Judgment:	24 September 2019 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for recall is granted.
BParagraph [95] of the judgment is recalled and replaced with:
[95] The case is remitted to the High Court for a hearing to determine the parties’ respective interests in the balance of the money from the Trading Account and for determination of Mr Castleton-Reid’s affirmative defences.
CThere is no order as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Venning J)

In its judgment of 20 August 2019, this Court allowed Mr Reid’s appeal and remitted the case to the High Court for hearing to determine the parties’ respective interests in the balance of the money from the Trading Account.[1]
[1]Reid v Castleton-Reid [2019] NZCA 372 at [95].
The respondent seeks recall of the judgment under r 8A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 to include a direction that when the matter is before the High Court, the High Court also determine Mr Castleton-Reid’s affirmative defences.
The application for recall is opposed.
The test for recall of civil judgments was described by Wild CJ in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) as follows:[2]
Generally speaking, a judgment once delivered must stand for better or worse subject, of course, to appeal. Were it otherwise there would be great inconvenience and uncertainty. There are, I think, three categories of cases in which a judgment not perfected may be recalled — first, where since the hearing there has been an amendment to a relevant statute or regulation or a new judicial decision of relevance and high authority; secondly, where counsel have failed to direct the Court’s attention to a legislative provision or authoritative decision of plain relevance; and thirdly, where for some other very special reason justice requires that the judgment be recalled.
[2]Horowhenua County v Nash (No. 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633.
There has been no amendment to a relevant statute or regulation or a new judicial decision of relevance and high authority. Nor did counsel fail to direct our attention to a relevant legislative provision or authoritative decision. The application for recall relies on the third category of case. The question is whether for some other very special reason justice requires that the judgment be recalled.
The decision appealed against was Gordon J’s finding that Mr Reid’s payment of funds into the Trading Account was a gift.[3] The focus of the hearing before Gordon J and this Court was on that issue. The affirmative defences pleaded by Mr Castleton‑Reid (abuse of process, estoppel, and change of position) were not addressed or determined by Gordon J and were not referred to before this Court on appeal.

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Reid v Castleton-Reid

Details

AGLC: Reid v Castleton-Reid [2019] NZCA 452
Case: [2019] NZCA 452
Decision Date: 24 September 2019 at 2.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered an application for recall in the case of Reid v Castleton-Reid. The case involved a dispute over the balance of money in a Trading Account between Ross Ronayne Reid and Barry Ross Laurence Castleton-Reid. The appeal was against a High Court decision that Ross had gifted $1,700,000 to Barry. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the case back to the High Court to determine the parties' respective interests in the balance of the money from the Trading Account. Barry sought recall of the judgment to include a direction that the High Court also determine his affirmative defences, which were not addressed by the Court of Appeal. The application for recall was opposed by Ross.

The legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the judgment should be recalled under r 8A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 to include a direction that the High Court also determine Barry's affirmative defences. The Court of Appeal considered the test for recall of civil judgments, which was described by Wild CJ in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2). The Court found that the recall application relied on the third category of case, where for some other very special reason justice required that the judgment be recalled. The Court of Appeal noted that the affirmative defences were not addressed by the High Court or the Court of Appeal. However, given that the case was to be remitted back to the High Court in any event, the Court of Appeal granted the recall application to include a direction that the High Court also determine Barry's affirmative defences.

In summary, the Court of Appeal allowed the application for recall and directed that the High Court determine the parties' respective interests in the balance of the money from the Trading Account and Barry's affirmative defences. There was no order as to costs.

Orders