SKP Incorporated v Auckland Council

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 118/2020
[2021] NZSC 44

BETWEEN	SKP INCORPORATED Applicant
AND	AUCKLAND COUNCIL First Respondent KENNEDY POINT BOATHARBOUR LIMITED Second Respondent

Court:	William Young, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	J D K Gardner-Hopkins for Applicant M C Allan and R K Smith for First Respondent P F Majurey and V N Morrison-Shaw for Second Respondent
Judgment:	19 May 2021

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 27 April 2021, reissued on 5 May 2021 (SKP Inc v Auckland Council [2021] NZSC 35), is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

SKP Inc has filed a second application for the recall of this Court’s judgment in SKP Inc v Auckland Council.[1] In that judgment, the Court granted SKP’s application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal, but dismissed the application for leave.[2]
[1]SKP Inc v Auckland Council [2021] NZSC 35.
[2]The judgment was recalled and reissued on 5 May 2021 with a correction: SKP Inc v Auckland Council [2021] NZSC 37.
Nothing has been advanced by SKP which would warrant a recall of the leave judgment. Rather, the application is in substance an attempt to debate the merits of the application for leave.
The application for recall is accordingly dismissed.

Solicitors:

Greenwood Law Ltd, Waiheke Island for Applicant
Brookfields, Auckland for First Respondent
Atkins Holm Majurey Ltd, Auckland for Second Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, SKP Incorporated sought to appeal the decision of the Auckland Council, with Kennedy Point Boatharbour Limited also involved as a second respondent. The central issue was SKP Incorporated's application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal a prior decision, which was initially dismissed. Following a previous judgment in SKP Inc v Auckland Council, SKP Incorporated applied for a recall of the Court's judgment, seeking to argue the merits of their application for leave. The court needed to determine whether the application for recall was justified and if there were grounds to reconsider the dismissal of the leave application.

The court found that SKP Incorporated had not presented any new arguments or evidence that warranted a recall of the judgment dismissing their application for leave. Instead, the application for recall appeared to be an attempt to revisit the merits of the leave application, which was not permissible under the rules governing recall applications. The Court held that there were no grounds to recall the judgment and dismissed the application for recall accordingly.

Given the findings, the Court dismissed SKP Incorporated's application for recall of the leave judgment. The dismissal was based on the absence of any new information or arguments that would justify a reconsideration of the original decision. Consequently, the Court's earlier judgment remained in effect, and SKP Incorporated's attempt to appeal the dismissal of their leave application was unsuccessful.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established