Williams v Cameron - [2016] NZCA 317

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA136/2016
[2016] NZCA 317

BETWEEN	PETER ANTHONY WILLIAMS Applicant
AND	TREVOR NELSON CAMERON AND OTHERS Respondents

Hearing:	4 July 2016
Court:	Harrison, French and Cooper JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person S Galbreath for Respondents
Judgment:	7 July 2016 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time to appeal is declined.
BThe applicant must pay the respondents costs for a standard application for leave to appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Harrison J)

Peter Williams has applied for an extension[1] of time to appeal against a decision of the High Court declining three substantive applications for leave.[2] His appeal was filed in this Court just three days out of time.[3] Nevertheless the respondents, Trevor Cameron and others, oppose on the grounds that the substantive appeal has no merit; and that they will suffer ongoing prejudice if leave is granted.
[1]Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 29A.
[2]Williams v Cameron [2016] NZHC 264 [HC decision].
[3]Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules, r 29.
The brief background is this. In 2009 Mr Williams and an associate company sued his former accountants, Mr Cameron and his firm. Mr Williams alleged that they had acted negligently, causing loss on the sale of his business. His claim was struck out in the District Court. However, it was reinstated on appeal to the High Court.[4]
[4]Williams v Cameron HC Nelson CIV-2010-442-222, 22 September 2010.
In October 2012 the District Court held that Mr Williams had in fact settled his claim against Mr Cameron and his firm. As a result, it dismissed Mr Williams’ claim. Costs were awarded against him.[5] His application to recall the judgment was unsuccessful.[6] So too was an appeal to the High Court against the District Court’s refusal to recall its judgment.[7] In the result costs were awarded against Mr Williams. He failed to pay. In November 2013 he was adjudicated bankrupt on Mr Cameron’s application.
[5]Williams v Cameron DC Nelson CIV-2009-042-544, 26 October 2012.
[6]Williams v Cameron DC Nelson CIV-2009-042-544, 15 April 2013.
[7]Williams v Cameron [2013] NZHC 1794.
Mr Williams then decided to follow a new path. In December 2014 he applied to the High Court for an extension of time to appeal against the District Court’s October 2012 decision. By then his appeal was two years out of time. In September 2015 the Official Assignee notified Mr Williams that he was disclaiming his right to challenge the District Court decision. As well as applying to the High Court for leave to appeal, Mr Williams applied for orders: (1) that the disclaimed property be vested in him; and (2) granting leave to adduce further evidence. In the judgment under appeal Mallon J dismissed all three applications on the ground that they were without merit and it would be contrary to the interests of justice to grant leave.
In support of his application…

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.

Continue reading Williams v Cameron

Details

AGLC: Williams v Cameron [2016] NZCA 317
Case: [2016] NZCA 317
Decision Date: 7 July 2016 at 11 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Peter Williams brought an appeal against the decision of the High Court declining three substantive applications for leave to appeal. Trevor Cameron and others opposed the application on the grounds that the substantive appeal had no merit and that they would suffer ongoing prejudice if leave was granted. The appeal was filed in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand just three days out of time. The central legal issues in this case were whether Mr Williams' application for an extension of time to appeal was justified and whether granting the extension would be in the interests of justice. The Court of Appeal considered several factors, including the merits of the proposed appeal, the delay in filing the appeal, and the prejudice that would result to the respondents if the appeal was granted. The Court of Appeal found that Mr Williams' proposed substantive argument was without merit and that granting leave to appeal would be contrary to the interests of justice, as it would allow Mr Williams to relitigate issues that had already been finally determined. Additionally, the Court of Appeal accepted that granting leave to appeal would prejudice the respondents, as Mr Cameron had already settled his dispute with his insurer based on the assumption that the litigation had been concluded. Consequently, the Court of Appeal declined Mr Williams' application for an extension of time to appeal and ordered him to pay costs to the respondents.

Orders