Richard John Creser v Janine Creser

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 105/2015
[2016] NZSC 3

BETWEEN	RICHARD JOHN CRESER Applicant
AND	JANINE MICHELLE CRESER AND MARION NGAIRE CRESER (AS TRUSTEES AND EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF JESSE JOY CRESER) Respondents

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	10 February 2016

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The recall application is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks an order for the recall of our judgment of 18 December 2015 dismissing an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of Harrison J.[1] The judgment proceeds on the basis that the Court of Appeal did have jurisdiction to deal with his application in relation to the form of the sealed order in question but that his complaints as to the no-jurisdiction conclusion had, in substance, been overtaken by subsequent events; this because his challenge to the sealed order was addressed on the merits by the Court of Appeal in a judgment delivered on 2 December 2015. We note that he has now sought leave to appeal against this last judgment and his challenge to the conclusion reached can be addressed in the context of that application.
[1]Creser v Creser [2015] NZSC 194.
There is nothing in the application to warrant a recall.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Richard John Creser filed an application seeking the recall of a judgment previously issued by the Court. This judgment had dismissed his application for leave to appeal a decision rendered by Harrison J. The respondents in this matter were Janine Michelle Creser and Marion Ngaere Creser, who acted as trustees and executors of the estate of Jesse Joy Creser. The case was presided over by Justices William Young, Glazebrook, and Arnold. The applicant appeared in person, without legal representation.

The central legal issue the Court had to address was whether the recall of the earlier judgment dismissing the applicant's leave to appeal was warranted. Specifically, the Court needed to consider whether the applicant's complaints about the no-jurisdiction conclusion had been effectively addressed by subsequent events, including his challenge to the sealed order which was assessed on the merits by the Court of Appeal in a judgment delivered on December 2, 2015. Additionally, the Court had to determine if the applicant's current application provided sufficient grounds to warrant a recall of the earlier judgment.

The Court found that there was no basis for recalling the earlier judgment. The applicant's challenge to the no-jurisdiction conclusion had, in essence, been addressed by the Court of Appeal in its subsequent judgment. The Court noted that the applicant had subsequently sought leave to appeal against this latest judgment, and any further challenge to the conclusion reached could be addressed in that context. Consequently, the Court dismissed the recall application, finding that it was not warranted given the circumstances.

In conclusion, the Court upheld its earlier judgment and dismissed the applicant's recall application. The Court's decision stands, and no recall of the initial judgment dismissing the leave to appeal application is warranted.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established