GIBSON V MINTER ELLISON RUDD WATTS SC 8/2008
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant sought to relitigate factual issues that had been affirmed by the Court of Appeal as concurrent findings of fact, the matters raised were not of general or public importance or general commercial significance, the miscarriage of justice threshold was not met, and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SC 8/2008
- Parties
- Applicant: Neville James Gibson; Respondent: Minter Ellison Rudd Watts
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 1 May 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Leave Decision (application Dismissed)
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Concurrent Findings of Fact, Miscarriage of Justice, Judicial Bias, Costs Order
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Neville James Gibson
Applicant
Minter Ellison Rudd Watts
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Leave Decision (application Dismissed)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the criteria for granting leave to appeal (general or public importance, general commercial significance, miscarriage of justice) were satisfied
- 2 Whether the applicant impermissibly seeks to relitigate factual findings now treated as concurrent findings of fact
- 3 Whether allegations of bias against the Court of Appeal judges were justified
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant sought to relitigate factual issues that had been affirmed by the Court of Appeal as concurrent findings of fact, the matters raised were not of general or public importance or general commercial significance, the miscarriage of justice threshold was not met, and allegations of bias were unjustified.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- Leave to appeal dismissed
- Applicant to pay costs to respondent in the sum of $2,500
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
GIBSON V MINTER ELLISON RUDD WATTS SC 8/2008 1 May 2008IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 8/2008 [2008] NZSC 33BETWEEN NEVILLE JAMES GIBSON Applicant AND MINTER ELLISON RUDD WATTS Respondent Court: Blanchard, Tipping and Wilson JJ Counsel: Applicant in person R J Scott for Respondent Judgment: 1 May 2008JUDGMENT OF THE COURT The application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.[1] The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal 1 which dismissed his appeal against a substantive judgment of the High Court and allowed in part his appeal against a subsequent costs judgment. In support of his application, the applicant has lodged not only his original submissions but also (without having obtained leave to do so) amended submissions and an addendum thereto, more than 700 pages of what are said to be supporting documents and submissions in reply. He submits that the criteria for the grant of leave of general or public importance, general commercial significance and miscarriage of justice are all satisfied.1 [2007] NZCA 595.[2] We do not agree. Although his submission is to the contrary, the appellant is in reality attempting to relitigate factual issues which he raised in the Court of Appeal. That Court found that the relevant factual findings of the High Court were supported by the evidence, with the consequence that there are now concurrent findings of fact. These issues were of no concern to anyone other than the parties, and therefore cannot possibly be said to be of general or public importance or of general commercial significance. Moreover, as this Court has made clear, 2 the miscarriage ground will on its own justify the grant of leave in civil cases only in those rare cases where there is an error in the Court of Appeal reasoning which is so apparent and substantial that it would be repugnant to justice to allow it to go uncorrected. That is plainly not the position here. [3] The applicant has made allegations of bias against the members of the Court of Appeal. On an objective reading of the very careful judgment of that Court, those allegations are quite unjustified and should not have been made. [4] The application for leave to appeal is therefore dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.Solicitors: McElroys, Auckland for Respondent2 Junior Farms Ltd v Hampton Securities Ltd (in liq) [2006] 3 NZLR 522n.