BURTON V THOMPSON HC AK CIV 2012-404-1465

BURTON V THOMPSON HC AK CIV 2012-404-1465

The earlier judgment was based on a misunderstanding of the basis of the respondents' application; accordingly the correct course was to recall and reissue the judgment with specified paragraphs deleted and to allow the application under r 7.49(5), together with an apology for the unjustified criticism of counsel.

Citation
openlaw-4e7a10ac_eb66_4723_a147_6ac34bd170a1.pdf
Parties
Applicants: Rebecca Jessie Burton, James Richard Burton and Annemarjorie Burton as trustees of The Rebecca Burton Family Trust; First Respondent: Brendal Maree Thompson; Second Respondent: Graeme Robert Little; Third Respondent: Bebe Corporation Limited; Fourth Respondent: Dolly Boutique Limited; Fifth Respondent: First Choice Collections (NZ) Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
9 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil (high Court) / Judgment on Application to Vary or Rescind (recall and Reissue) — on the Papers
Outcome
Judgment recalled and reissued; application under r 7.49(5) allowed; apology issued to solicitors and counsel for first to fourth respondents.
Legal Topics
Recall and Reissue of Judgment, Variation or Rescission of Orders, High Court Rules R 7.49(5)
Civil Procedure Court Administration Recall and Reissue of Judgment Variation or Rescission of Orders High Court Rules R 7.49(5)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rebecca Jessie Burton, James Richard Burton and Annemarjorie Burton as trustees of The Rebecca Burton Family Trust

Applicants

Brendal Maree Thompson

First Respondent

Graeme Robert Little

Second Respondent

Bebe Corporation Limited

Third Respondent

Dolly Boutique Limited

Fourth Respondent

First Choice Collections (NZ) Limited

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (high Court) / Judgment on Application to Vary or Rescind (recall and Reissue) — on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the earlier judgment should be recalled and reissued to correct a misapprehension and unjustified criticism of counsel
  2. 2 Whether the application under r 7.49(5) of the High Court Rules was properly made to ensure a different Judge hears the variation/rescission application
  3. 3 Whether it was necessary to hear the applicants on the correction

Ratio Decidendi

The earlier judgment was based on a misunderstanding of the basis of the respondents' application; accordingly the correct course was to recall and reissue the judgment with specified paragraphs deleted and to allow the application under r 7.49(5), together with an apology for the unjustified criticism of counsel.

Court Disposition

Judgment recalled and reissued; application under r 7.49(5) allowed; apology issued to solicitors and counsel for first to fourth respondents.

Orders

  • Earlier judgment of 13 June 2012 recalled and reissued with paras [17] and [76](d) deleted
  • Registrar to advise legal publishers that the reissued judgment is the correct version and to replace the earlier version