GREGORY JOHN JONES v NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCK FINANCE AND LEASING LIMITED [2023] NZSC 158
The renewed recall application was dismissed because it impermissibly sought to relitigate the reasons for refusing leave to appeal and failed to meet the established high threshold for recall, therefore the recall must be refused and further filings in the matter restrained.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] NZSC 158
- Parties
- Applicant: Gregory John Jones; Respondent: New Zealand Bloodstock Finance and Leasing Limited
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 8 December 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Recall Application; Leave to Appeal Matter / Second Application for Recall (post Judgment)
- Outcome
- Second application for recall dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Recall Application, Leave to Appeal, Stay of Execution, Recusal, Filing Restrictions
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Gregory John Jones
Applicant
New Zealand Bloodstock Finance and Leasing Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Recall Application; Leave to Appeal Matter / Second Application for Recall (post Judgment)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant established grounds to recall the Supreme Court's judgment
- 2 Whether a recall application can be used to relitigate the reasons for refusing leave to appeal
- 3 Whether the Registrar should be directed to refuse further filings in relation to the matter
Ratio Decidendi
The renewed recall application was dismissed because it impermissibly sought to relitigate the reasons for refusing leave to appeal and failed to meet the established high threshold for recall, therefore the recall must be refused and further filings in the matter restrained.
Court Disposition
Second application for recall dismissed.
Orders
- Second application for recall dismissed.
- The Registrar is directed not to accept for filing any further applications in relation to this matter.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
GREGORY JOHN JONES v NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCK FINANCE AND LEASING LIMITED [2023]NZSC 158 [8 December 2023]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROASC 100/2022[2023] NZSC 158BETWEEN GREGORY JOHN JONESApplicantAND NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCKFINANCE AND LEASING LIMITEDRespondentCourt: Glazebrook, Williams and Kós JJCounsel: Applicant in personF A King for RespondentJudgment: 8 December 2023JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The second application for recall is dismissed.B The Registrar is directed not to accept for filing any furtherapplications in relation to this matter.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] This is a second application for recall of the judgment of this Court deliveredon 2 August 2023 (declining leave to appeal).1[2] Other orders are sought, including for "stay of appeal", stay of execution andoral hearing of the applicant's arguments about recusal. It proves unnecessary toaddress these latter matters; as a matter of jurisdiction, they hang upon the renewedapplication for recall.1 Jones v New Zealand Bloodstock Finance and Leasing Ltd [2023] NZSC 98.[3] As this Court made abundantly clear in its decision on the applicant's firstapplication for recall, a recall application cannot be used to relitigate the reasons forrefusing leave.2[4] We regret to have to say that this renewed recall application is a further instanceof the applicant flouting that restriction. The arguments presented seek to relitigatereasons given previously in our decision declining leave. Nothing raised by theapplicant meets the threshold for a recall application to be granted, and it musttherefore be dismissed.3[5] Given no substantial response was required of the respondent we make noorder for costs.Result[6] The second application for recall is dismissed.[7] The Registrar is directed not to accept for filing any further applications inrelation to this matter.Solicitors:McKenna King Dempster, Hamilton for Respondent2 Jones v New Zealand Bloodstock Finance and Leasing Ltd [2023] NZSC 133 at [10].3 Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633; and Saxmere Company Ltd vWool Board Disestablishment Company Ltd (No 2) [2009] NZSC 122, [2010] 1 NZLR 76 at [2].