Williams v Auckland Council - [2016] NZSC 130

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 124/2015
[2016] NZSC 130

BETWEEN	CHARLES WILLIAM WILLIAMS, JEAN ELIZABETH MORLEY, INEZ BEVERLY FLAVELL, LESLEY ANNE HENSLEIGH, THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND FOUNDATION OF THE BLIND, DONALD ALEXANDER MACKINTOSH, LYNDA ANNE RYAN, JANICE AILEEN ROBERTSON, GILLIAN MADGE CLARK, ROSALIE HILDA MAILAND, DONALD MICHAEL STEWART, PATRICIA DORA MARY SPENCER-WOOD, SOPHIE MARIA HUNT AND DAVID JOHN MCCORMICK First to Seventh Applicants
AND	AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, William Young and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	C R Carruthers QC for Applicants M E Casey QC and G W Hall for Respondent
Judgment:	30 September 2016

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application to recall the judgment in Williams v Auckland Council [2016] NZSC 20 is dismissed.

BThe applicants must pay costs of $1,000 to the respondent.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

On 11 March 2016, this Court issued a judgment dismissing the applicants’ application for leave to appeal.[1]
[1]Williams v Auckland Council [2016] NZSC 20.
On 30 June 2016, the applicants filed a notice of application to recall the judgment. Their counsel sought an oral hearing to argue the application and, if it succeeded, the substantive application for leave to appeal.
The Court sought submissions from the respondent on the application. After these were received, the applicants sought, and were granted, leave to file submissions in reply. Having considered the points made in the notice of application for recall, the submissions of the respondent and the reply submissions of the applicants, we are satisfied that there are no proper grounds for recalling the judgment. We do not consider it necessary to have a hearing. Our reasons follow.
As stated in this Court’s judgment in Saxmere Company Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Ltd (No 2), there are three categories of cases that have been recognised by New Zealand Courts in which a judgment may be recalled if not already perfected.[2] These are:
(a)where, since the hearing there has been an amendment to a relevant statute or regulation or a new judicial decision of relevance and high authority;
(b)where counsel have failed to direct the Court’s attention to a legislative provision or authoritative decision of plain relevance; or
(c)where for some other very special reason justice requires that the judgment be recalled.
[2]Saxmere Company Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Ltd(No 2) [2009] NZSC 122, [2010] 1 NZLR 76 at [2] citing Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 at 633.
In this case the application for recall appears to be made on the basis that the third category applies. This was confirmed by the applicants in their reply submissions.
The applicants say the Court based its judgment on two statements that were incorrect, and this meant the Court relied on a factual basis to dismiss the application for leave which was not supported by the evidence. They say this brings the case within the same category as the Saxmere decision referred to earlier, in which this Court recalled its earlier judgment refusing…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Williams v Auckland Council and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] NZSC 130
Decision Date: 30 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Williams v Auckland Council, the applicants sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their claims for compensation and the return of land taken for public purposes under the Public Works Act 1936. The Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed the application for leave to appeal, and the applicants subsequently applied to recall that judgment. The legal issues before the Court were whether there were proper grounds for recalling the judgment, specifically whether the applicants had demonstrated that justice required the judgment to be recalled. The Court found that there were no proper grounds for recalling the judgment, as the applicants had not shown that the judgment was based on incorrect facts or that justice required the judgment to be recalled. The Court found that the statements on which the applicants relied were either observations or conclusions of law, and not the basis for the judgment. The Court also found that the applicants had not shown that the judgment was based on incorrect facts, as the applicants had not provided any evidence to support their claims of incorrectness. The Court dismissed the application for recall and awarded costs of $1,000 to the respondent.

Orders