BOSTIK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V STEPHEN GRAHAM LOCKWOOD AND WADHAM GOODMAN TRUSTEES LIMITED AS TRUSTEES OF THE ISLAND TRUST SC SC 102/2010
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the Court of Appeal did not err in its approach of resolving issues it could and remitting the remainder to the trial court; none of the Court of Appeal's determinations were obviously wrong or sufficient to show a substantial miscarriage of justice, so the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SC 102/2010
- Parties
- Applicant: Bostik New Zealand Limited; Respondent: Stephen Graham Lockwood and Wadham Goodman Trustees Limited as Trustees of the Island Trust
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 8 December 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Leave Application Heard and Dismissed by Supreme Court
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Remittal to Trial Court, Retrial, Adequacy of Reasons
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Bostik New Zealand Limited
Applicant
Stephen Graham Lockwood and Wadham Goodman Trustees Limited as Trustees of the Island Trust
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Leave Application Heard and Dismissed by Supreme Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in remedying inadequate High Court reasons
- 2 Whether the Court of Appeal's approach amounted to a substantial miscarriage of justice warranting leave to appeal
- 3 Whether the criteria for grant of leave to the Supreme Court were met
Ratio Decidendi
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the Court of Appeal did not err in its approach of resolving issues it could and remitting the remainder to the trial court; none of the Court of Appeal's determinations were obviously wrong or sufficient to show a substantial miscarriage of justice, so the criteria for leave are not met.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Costs awarded to respondents in the sum of $2,500
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
BOSTIK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V STEPHEN GRAHAM LOCKWOOD AND WADHAM GOODMAN TRUSTEES LIMITED AS TRUSTEES OF THE ISLAND TRUST SC SC 102/2010 8 December 2010IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDSC 102/2010[2010] NZSC 150BETWEEN BOSTIK NEW ZEALAND LIMITEDApplicantAND STEPHEN GRAHAM LOCKWOOD ANDWADHAM GOODMAN TRUSTEESLIMITED AS TRUSTEES OF THEISLAND TRUSTRespondentsCourt: Blanchard, McGrath and William Young JJCounsel: A C Challis and R J Scott for ApplicantL McEntegart and I T F Hikaka for RespondentsJudgment: 8 December 2010JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondents.REASONS[1] The Court of Appeal1 concluded that the reasons given by the High Court2were inadequate. The applicant is not challenging that decision. Rather, it argues that the Court of Appeal then erred in the way it then went about remedying that situation.[2] We see nothing wrong with the approach taken by the Court of Appeal. It has dealt with those issues which it has felt able to resolve and remitted the balance1 Lockwood v Bostik New Zealand Ltd [2010] NZCA 436, per O'Regan, Priestley and RonaldYoung JJ.2 Lockwood v Bostik New Zealand Ltd HC Auckland CIV-2006-404-7004, 20 March 2007 per Andrews J.to the trial court for resolution taking into account the decisions that it has made on appeal. There is no error in general principle in such an approach. The particular matters which have been determined are peculiar to the case. None of the decisions made in respect of them appears obviously wrong so that it can fairly be said that there may have been a substantial miscarriage of justice. The criteria for leave are not met.[3] We add that we have not found it necessary to consider whether the Court of Appeal was correct in the view it took concerning the circumstances in which it has power to order a retrial in a civil matter.3Solicitors:McElroys, Auckland for ApplicantLee Salmon Long, Auckland for Respondents3 At [41]–[43].