Charles William Williams and Others v Auckland Council

• Jurisdiction: New Zealand
• Judge: Elias CJ,,William Young,O'Regan JJ
• Judgment Date: 30 September 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] NZSC 130
• Docket Number: SC 124/2015
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 30 September 2016

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

[2016] NZSC 130

Court:

Elias CJ, William Young and O'Regan JJ

SC 124/2015

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

Application to recall a leave judgment — the Supreme Court (SC) issued a judgment dismissing the applicants' application for leave to appeal — the applicants said the SC 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 — the applicants contested the correctness of a statement about the need for familial connection in public works offer back situations, but accepted that this was not a matter that could be litigated in a recall application —whether either statement could form a basis for recall on the grounds of a very special reason where justice required recall.

Counsel:

C R Carruthers QC for Applicants

M E Casey QC and G W Hall for Respondent

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

• B The applicants must pay costs of $1,000 to the respondent.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

REASONS

1 On 11 March 2016, this Court issued a judgment dismissing the applicants' application for leave to appeal. 1

2 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.

3 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.

4 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.

5 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.

6 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...