CAOPING DING AND BARRY BAI v THOMAS EDMUND WILLIAM JAMES [2022] NZSC 58 [11 May 2022]

CAOPING DING AND BARRY BAI v THOMAS EDMUND WILLIAM JAMES [2022] NZSC 58 [11 May 2022]

The recall application was dismissed because the applicants failed to meet the narrow, established criteria for recall; the application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against a Court of Appeal decision refusing or refusing to recall leave to appeal.

Citation
[2022] NZSC 58
Parties
Applicant: Caoping Ding; Applicant: Barry Bai; First Respondent: Thomas Edmund William James; Second Respondent: Keaton Pronk; Second Respondent: Iain McLennan; Second Respondent: McDonald Vague Limited
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
11 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Applications for Recall and Leave to Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Recall and Leave Applications
Outcome
Application for recall of [2022] NZSC 28 dismissed; application for leave to appeal in SC 36/2022 dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Recall of Judgment, Leave to Appeal, Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process
Appellate Procedure Civil Procedure Recall of Judgment Leave to Appeal Jurisdiction Abuse of Process

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Caoping Ding

Applicant

Barry Bai

Applicant

Thomas Edmund William James

First Respondent

Keaton Pronk

Second Respondent

Iain McLennan

Second Respondent

McDonald Vague Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Applications for Recall and Leave to Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Recall and Leave Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether grounds for recall of the Supreme Court judgment exist
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the Court of Appeal's recall decision
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' conduct amounts to abuse of the Court's process

Ratio Decidendi

The recall application was dismissed because the applicants failed to meet the narrow, established criteria for recall; the application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against a Court of Appeal decision refusing or refusing to recall leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for recall of [2022] NZSC 28 dismissed; application for leave to appeal in SC 36/2022 dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Application for recall of [2022] NZSC 28 dismissed
  • Application for leave to appeal in SC 36/2022 dismissed