Smith v Plowman

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA703/2021
[2022] NZCA 247

BETWEEN	DENNIS ARTHUR SMITH Applicant
AND	IAN JAMES PLOWMAN First Respondent
AND	NIKAU GROVE NURSERY LIMITED Second Respondent
AND	HELEN IRENE MITCHELL Third Respondent

Court:	Miller and Dobson JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person W E Andrews for Respondents
Judgment: (On the papers)	14 June 2022 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 9 May 2022 (Smith v Plowman [2022] NZCA 170) is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Miller J)

Mr Smith has applied for recall of our judgment of 9 May 2022. For reasons given there we decided that his application for leave to appeal raised no issue warranting the attention of this Court.[1]
[1]Smith v Plowman [2022] NZCA 170.
The application is an attempt to relitigate the merits of our decision. For that reason it is an abuse of the recall jurisdiction.
The application is declined accordingly. The Registrar may not receive any further recall applications from Mr Smith in connection with his application for leave to appeal.

Solicitors:
Vodanovich Law, Auckland for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Smith v Plowman, the applicant, Dennis Arthur Smith, sought recall of the Court of Appeal's judgment dated 9 May 2022, which had dismissed his application for leave to appeal. Ian James Plowman was the first respondent, and Nikau Grove Nursery Limited and Helen Irene Mitchell were the second and third respondents, respectively. The case involved a dispute over the original decision, and Smith aimed to challenge the earlier judgment through this application for recall.

The legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the application for recall should be granted. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the application was an abuse of the recall jurisdiction by attempting to relitigate the merits of the earlier decision. The Court also needed to decide if Smith's application warranted the attention of the Court of Appeal, given that it had already dismissed his application for leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal, represented by Miller J, declined the application for recall. The Court found that the application was an attempt to relitigate the merits of the earlier decision, which constituted an abuse of the recall jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court ruled that the application was not warranted and declined it. Furthermore, the Court noted that no further recall applications from Smith in connection with his application for leave to appeal would be received by the Registrar.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were that the application for recall was declined, and no further recall applications from Mr Smith in connection with his application for leave to appeal would be received by the Registrar.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established