Scott v Scott

[2010] NZCA 209

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA711/2009
[2010] NZCA 209

BETWEENLEWTYN MICHAEL SCOTT

Appellant

ANDROSEMARY ANN SCOTT

First Respondent

ANDLEE MCNEILLY

Second Respondent

ANDALISON SCOTT

Third Respondent

ANDCARA ANN CLARE

Fourth Respondent

Court:O'Regan, Arnold and Ellen France JJ

Counsel:Mr Scott in person

R E Harrison QC for Respondents

Judgment:24 May 2010 at 11 am

(On the papers)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A            The application for stay is dismissed.

BCosts are reserved.  Leave is reserved for the respondents to seek costs – see [4] of the Reasons of the Court.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by O’Regan J)

[1]        On 28 April 2010, Mr Scott filed a document said to be an application for extension of time and an application for stay.  He indicated to the Court registry staff that the application for stay was a matter of urgency and needed to be drawn to the attention of a judge immediately.  The matter was placed before O’Regan J who indicated that he was not prepared to grant a stay on an ex parte basis.  O’Regan J directed that the material filed by Mr Scott be served on the respondents’ counsel and solicitors, and that their response be sought by memorandum to be filed and served by 5 May 2010.  That memorandum was received on 4 May 2010, and Mr Scott was given the opportunity to reply.  This he did by a memorandum dated 9 May 2010.

[2]        This judgment deals with the application for stay.  Mr Scott is seeking urgent interim orders preventing the implementation of the orders made by Stevens J in his judgment dated 5 August 2009.  This is essentially the same relief that he sought in an application for stay which was dismissed by this Court on 18 September 2009.[1]  The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal against that decision.[2]  The matter is now res judicata and it is a clear abuse of the process of the court to renew an application which has already been dealt with by the court. 

[1]      Scott v Scott [2009] NZCA 417.

[2]      Scott v Scott [2009] NZSC 111.

[3]        For this reason the application for stay is dismissed.

[4]        Mr Scott has other matters before the Court and in the circumstances we consider that it is appropriate that cost issues be dealt with when those matters are resolved.  We therefore reserve costs in relation to the present application.  We give leave to the respondents to seek costs when those other matters come to a hearing or, if there is no hearing in the next six months, by application in writing to the Court.

Solicitors:

O’Sullivan Clemens, Rotorua for Respondents