Stockman v New Zealand Association of Counsellors Incorporated

NOTE: ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THIRD PARTY REMAINS IN FORCE.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 2/2016
[2016] NZSC 35

BETWEEN	PETER GERARD STOCKMAN Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND ASSOCIATION OF COUNSELLORS INCORPORATED Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person C Heaton for Respondent
Judgment:	7 April 2016

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for recall of the Court’s judgment in Stockman v New Zealand Association of Counsellors Inc [2016] NZSC 18 is dismissed.
BThere is no order for costs.

_____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant, Mr Stockman, asks the Court to recall its judgment in Stockman v New Zealand Association of Counsellors Inc,[1] in which the Court declined Mr Stockman’s application for leave to appeal. The ground of the recall application is that the Court failed to give reasons for its refusal, as required by s 16 of the Supreme Court Act 2003.
[1]Stockman v New Zealand Association of Counsellors Inc [2016] NZSC 18.
Section 16 provides:
Court to state reasons for refusal to give leave
(1)The Supreme Court must state its reasons for refusing to give leave to appeal to it.
(2)The reasons may be stated briefly, and may be stated in general terms only.
In refusing leave, the Court stated that it was not satisfied that it was necessary in the interests of justice that it hear and determine the appeal because it did not consider that any issue of public or general importance was raised, or that there was any appearance of a miscarriage of justice. Those were its reasons for declining leave, and they meet the requirements of s 16.
Mr Stockman has raised nothing which justifies recall of the Court’s judgment. Accordingly the application for recall is dismissed. There is no order for costs.

Solicitors:
Morrison Kent, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was asked to recall its earlier decision in the case of Stockman v New Zealand Association of Counsellors Incorporated. The applicant, Mr. Peter Gerard Stockman, sought recall of the Court's judgment in which it declined his application for leave to appeal. The Court had previously declined Mr. Stockman’s application for leave to appeal, stating that it was not satisfied that it was necessary in the interests of justice to hear and determine the appeal, as no issue of public or general importance was raised and there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Court's refusal to grant leave to appeal was accompanied by adequate reasons as required by section 16 of the Supreme Court Act 2003. Section 16 mandates that the Court must state its reasons for refusing to give leave to appeal, which may be stated briefly and in general terms. The Court had outlined its reasons for declining leave, and Mr. Stockman argued that these reasons were insufficient. The Court needed to determine whether Mr. Stockman's argument had merit and whether the reasons provided were adequate under the statute.

The Court found that the reasons provided met the statutory requirements. The Court had clearly stated that it was not satisfied that it was necessary in the interests of justice to hear the appeal, citing the absence of an issue of public or general importance and the lack of any appearance of a miscarriage of justice. The Court concluded that these reasons were sufficient and met the criteria under section 16. Mr. Stockman had not provided any argument or evidence that would justify the recall of the Court’s judgment. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for recall and made no order for costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established