Whittington v UDC Finance Limited

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 92/2021
[2021] NZSC 113

BETWEEN	MARK ANTHONY WHITTINGTON Applicant
AND	UDC FINANCE LIMITED Respondent

Court:	William Young, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	10 September 2021

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 27 August 2021 (Whittington v UDC Finance Ltd [2021] NZSC 106) is dismissed.

B The application to adduce evidence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks recall of our judgment of 27 August 2021 declining to grant a stay of his bankruptcy adjudication.[1] He also seeks leave to adduce a range of materials in support of his application.
[1]Whittington v UDC Finance Ltd [2021] NZSC 106.
The basis on which the recall application is made appears to be that for some very special reason, justice requires the judgment declining a stay to be recalled.[2] Nothing has been advanced in either the original or amended applications which would warrant a recall of our decision not to grant a stay. Nor do the further materials on which the applicant seeks to rely meet the established guidelines for admissibility in terms of r 40 of the Supreme Court Rules 2004.[3]
[2]Saxmere Co Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Co Ltd (No 2) [2009] NZSC 122, [2010] 1 NZLR 76 at [2], citing Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633. See also Craig v Williams [2019] NZSC 60 at [10].
[3]Airwork (NZ) Ltd v Vertical Flight Management Ltd [1999] 1 NZLR 641 (CA) at 649–650, endorsed in Paper Reclaim Ltd v Aotearoa International Ltd (Further Evidence) (No 2) [2007] NZSC 1, [2007] 2 NZLR 124 at [16].
The application for recall is dismissed. The application to adduce evidence is dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was presented with an application from Mark Anthony Whittington against UDC Finance Limited. The central issue was the recall of a prior Supreme Court decision from August 27, 2021, which had declined to grant a stay of Mr. Whittington’s bankruptcy adjudication. Additionally, Mr. Whittington sought permission to present further evidence in support of his application. The Court was constituted by Justices William Young, Ellen France, and Williams.

The legal issues before the Court included whether the grounds presented by Mr. Whittington were sufficient to warrant a recall of the earlier judgment and whether the additional evidence he proposed to adduce was admissible under the Supreme Court Rules 2004. The Court examined the merits of the recall application and the admissibility of the proposed evidence, considering established legal precedents and the criteria set forth in the Supreme Court Rules. The Court found that the application did not meet the stringent requirements for recall and that the additional evidence did not comply with the admissibility guidelines.

In its judgment, the Court dismissed both the application for recall and the application to adduce further evidence. The Court held that Mr. Whittington had not provided any compelling reasons justifying a recall of the earlier decision, and the proposed additional evidence did not meet the necessary standards for admissibility. The Court reaffirmed its earlier stance, concluding that no exceptional circumstances existed that would warrant revisiting its decision. The Court's reasoning was grounded in the legal principles governing recall applications and the stringent criteria for admissibility of evidence in the Supreme Court of New Zealand.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established