Richard John Creser v Janine Michelle Creser and the Official Assignee

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 46/2015
[2015] NZSC 108

BETWEEN

RICHARD JOHN CRESER
Applicant

AND

JANINE MICHELLE CRESER
First Respondent

THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE
Second Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person First Respondent in person
Judgment:	21 July 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Creser applies for a recall of this Court’s judgment of 16 July 2015,[1] refusing leave to appeal against a decision of Cooper J upholding the Registrar of the Court of Appeal’s decision refusing to dispense with security for costs.[2]
[1]Creser v Creser [2015] NZSC 104.
[2]Creser v Creser [2015] NZCA 128.
Mr Creser seeks a recall based on what he says was a fraud upon the Court with regard to his bankruptcy. He therefore states that this Court’s decision is “unsafe”.
As this Court noted in its decision, Mr Creser’s submissions related to his bankruptcy were not relevant to Mr Creser’s identified grounds of appeal.[3] They can therefore provide no justification for a recall of our judgment.
[3]Creser v Creser, above n 1, at [4]. Prior to the delivery of this Court’s judgment on 16 July 2015, this Court received and considered documents and submissions filed by Mr Cresser concerning his bankruptcy.
The application for recall is dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Richard John Creser applied to the Supreme Court of New Zealand for a recall of their earlier decision refusing leave to appeal against a decision of Cooper J. The appeal pertained to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal's refusal to dispense with security for costs. Creser claimed that there was a fraud in relation to his bankruptcy, making the court's decision "unsafe". The court had to determine whether the application for recall was justified and if Creser's claims about his bankruptcy could be considered as grounds for recalling the judgment.

The primary legal issue was whether the alleged fraud concerning Creser's bankruptcy constituted a sufficient reason to recall the Supreme Court's decision. The court noted that Creser's submissions regarding his bankruptcy were not relevant to the identified grounds of appeal, and thus, they could not justify a recall of the judgment. The court further examined whether the documents and submissions received before the judgment delivery could support a valid ground for recalling the decision.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for recall, stating that Creser's claims of fraud concerning his bankruptcy did not constitute a valid reason to reconsider their earlier judgment. The court found that the submissions made by Creser were not pertinent to the grounds of appeal identified and thus could not provide justification for recalling the decision. Consequently, the application for recall was dismissed.

No additional orders were made in the judgment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established