Terry v McLellan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GREYMOUTH REGISTRY

CIV2014-418-000013 [2014] NZHC 2280

BETWEEN
ROBERT FRANK TERRY

Appellant

AND

ROSALIND MEGAN McLELLAN Respondent

Hearing: 18 September 2014

Appearances:

Appellant in Person
G M Brodie for Respondent
M A Elliott for Solicitor-General

Judgment:

19 September 2014

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

Mr Terry seeks leave to appeal against my judgment delivered on 8 August 2014.1 I have essayed the background to this application for leave in my primary judgment and it is unnecessary for me to repeat it here. It is quite plain from reading the notice of appeal that Mr Terry seeks simply to re-litigate the matters that he put to me and previously to Gendall J.2 No specific error of law has been identified other than, as I say, to simply repeat the matters that were put to me. I am not going to burden this judgment with repetition of my reasons for my judgment but I simply state that the appeal has no prospect of success and it does not raise a question of general importance.3 The application for leave is declined.

Solicitors:
Carruthers & Wetherall, Greymouth
Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch

1      Terry v McLellan [2014] NZHC 1861.
2      Terry v McLellan [2013] NZHC 3045.
3      For completeness, Mr Elliot reminded me why it was not necessary to join the Solicitor General, citing earlier decisions of this Court on the same issue – Terry v McLellan [2013] NZHC 3045 and Minute of Dunningham J dated 21 May 2014. I simply observe that both of Mr Terry’s applications for leave to appeal have no merit and there is no proper basis to join the Solicitor General.

TERRY v McLELLAN [2014] NZHC 2280 [19 September 2014]

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robert Frank Terry, the appellant, sought leave to appeal against a judgment delivered by Whata J on 8 August 2014 in a case between him and Rosalind Megan McLellan, the respondent. The appeal was heard in the High Court of New Zealand at Greymouth on 18 September 2014. The appellant appeared in person while the respondent was represented by G M Brodie, with M A Elliott appearing for the Solicitor-General.

The court was required to decide whether to grant the appellant leave to appeal against the judgment. The appellant sought to re-litigate the matters previously presented to the court, without identifying any specific error of law. The court was also required to determine whether the appeal raised a question of general importance. In declining the application for leave, the court noted that the appeal had no prospect of success and did not raise a question of general importance.

In the judgment delivered on 19 September 2014, Whata J declined the appellant's application for leave to appeal. The court found that the appeal had no merit and that there was no proper basis to join the Solicitor-General. The court was satisfied that the appeal did not raise a question of general importance, and that there was no specific error of law identified in the appeal. The court observed that the appellant's previous applications for leave to appeal had also been without merit.

The court did not consider it necessary to repeat the reasons for its earlier judgment but stated that the appeal had no prospect of success. The court found that the appellant's attempt to re-litigate the matters presented to the court did not provide a sufficient basis for granting leave to appeal. The court also noted that the appeal did not raise a question of general importance, and that there was no specific error of law identified in the appeal. The court's decision was based on its assessment of the merits of the appeal and the absence of any significant legal issues.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	18 September 2014
Appearances:	Appellant in Person G M Brodie for Respondent M A Elliott for Solicitor-General
Judgment:	19 September 2014