Spurr v Farmlands Fuel Limited (formerly CRT Fuel Limited)

[2014] NZCA 286

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA363/2013
[2014] NZCA 286

BETWEEN	STUART GRAEME SPURR Appellant
AND	FARMLANDS FUEL LIMITED (FORMERLY CRT FUEL LIMITED) Respondent

Court:

Randerson, Stevens and French JJ

Counsel:

Applicant in person
M B Couling for Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)

30 June 2014 at 3.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Stevens J)

1. The applicant, Mr Spurr, seeks recall of this Court’s judgment delivered on 23 May 2014,[1] dismissing his application for recall of an earlier decision of this Court[2] declining to extend time for him to appeal a decision of the High Court adjudicating him bankrupt.[3]  The present application is more accurately described as a third application to recall the first decision by this Court, declining to grant an extension of time to Mr Spurr.[4]

   [1]Spurr v Farmland Fuels Ltd [2014] NZCA 196 [second recall decision].

   [2]Spurr v CRT Fuel Ltd [2013] NZCA 567 [extension of time decision].

   [3]CRT Fuel Ltd v Spurr HC Timaru CIV-2012-476-237, 30 April 2013.

   [4]See second recall decision, above n 1, at [3] – that application for recall was also framed as an application to recall the first recall decision of this Court, Spurr v Farmlands Fuel Ltd [2014] NZCA 48 [first recall decision], but was treated as an application to recall the extension of time decision, in reliance on Colman v Attorney-General [2013] NZSC 59 at [1] and Peterson v Lucas [2014] NZSC 6 at [9].

2. The grounds for seeking this latest recall essentially repeat those relied upon in the two prior unsuccessful applications.  Mr Spurr also includes myriad additional grounds in his application relating to alleged fraud and injustice, all of which have been raised in various iterations in previous submissions.  None of these provide a basis for this Court to reconsider its judgment declining to grant an extension of time.  The application for recall is dismissed for the same reasons as given in earlier judgments.[5]

   [5]First recall decision, above n 4, at [6]–[14] and second recall decision, above n 1, at [5]–[8].

3. In the second recall decision we noted that repetitive applications by Mr Spurr would be dealt with summarily.[6]  That approach has been followed with this application.  We also direct the Registrar not to accept for filing any further applications for recall of our decision extending time by Mr Spurr.

   [6]Second recall decision, above n 1, at [3].

Solicitors:
Anderson Lloyd, Dunedin for Respondent