STOCKMAN v NEW ZEALAND ASSOCIATION OF COUNSELLORS INCORPORATED [2019] NZCA 268

STOCKMAN v NEW ZEALAND ASSOCIATION OF COUNSELLORS INCORPORATED [2019] NZCA 268[28 June 2019]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA493/2018[2019] NZCA 268BETWEEN PETER GERARD STOCKMANApplicantAND NEW ZEALAND ASSOCIATION OFCOUNSELLORS INCORPORATEDRespondentCourt: Brown and Clifford JJCounsel: Applicant in personM R C Wolff for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)28 June 2019 at 2 pmJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for recall is declined.B There is no order as to costs.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Clifford J)Introduction[1] In April 2017 Mr Stockman commenced proceedings for judicial review inthe High Court. He was dissatisfied with the way the respondent had dealt witha complaint he had made. The respondent applied to stay those proceedings, onthe basis that the statement of claim was fundamentally defective. Cull J observedthat, in her preliminary view, Mr Stockman's statement of claim faced real difficultiesin a number of areas. After discussing those matters with the parties the Judgeadjourned the hearing, so that Mr Stockman could, if he wished, file an amendedstatement of claim. The Judge was not prepared to grant the respondent a stay orstrike-out without having given such an opportunity to Mr Stockman. Mr Stockmansubsequently indicated he would not be amending his pleading.[2] Mr Stockman then applied for Cull J to recuse herself. She declined thatapplication.1 Cull J then declined leave for Mr Stockman to appeal that recusaldecision to this Court.2 Mr Stockman then applied to this Court for leave to bring thatappeal. That application was based on the propositions that the Judge was biased andprejudiced.[3] We declined leave.3[4] Mr Stockman now applies for recall of that decision on the basis this Courtfailed to determine the issues he raised in his leave application and was, accordingly,corrupt. The Court had, Mr Stockman asserts, been corrupted by hubris, as evidencedby errors of fact and our failure to explicitly consider a number of Mr Stockman'sspecific submissions. Mr Stockman wishes to appear in person before a full bench ofthis Court to argue his recall application.[5] The respondent abides.[6] We deal first with Mr Stockman's application for his recall application to beheard by a full Court, and then with that application itself. In terms of s 49(7) ofthe Senior Courts Act 2016, we determine Mr Stockman's application on the papers.A full court?[7] In terms of the procedure adopted by this Court pursuant to s 51(2) ofthe Senior Courts Act, the President has determined that Mr Stockman's recallapplication is not a case of sufficient significance to warrant the consideration of a1 Stockman v New Zealand Assoc of Counsellors Inc [2017] NZHC 2223.2 Stockman v New Zealand Assoc of Counsellors Inc [2018] NZHC 1902.3 Stockman v New Zealand Assoc of Counsellors Inc [2018] NZCA 532.full Court. It does not involve the establishment or revision of sentencing guidelinesnor an issue of major significance for other cases.Recall?[8] Turning to Mr Stockman's recall application, the test for recall of civiljudgments was described by Wild CJ in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) asfollows:4Generally speaking, a judgment once delivered must stand for better or worse,subject, of course, to appeal.[5] Were it otherwise there would be greatinconvenience and uncertainty. There are, I think, three categories of cases inwhich a judgment not perfected may be recalled –— first, where sincethe hearing there has been an amendment to a relevant statute or regulation ora new judicial decision of relevance and high authority; secondly, wherecounsel have failed to direct the Court's attention to a legislative provision orauthoritative decision of plain relevance; and thirdly, where for some othervery special reason justice requires that the judgment be recalled.[9] There has been no amendment to a relevant statute or regulation, or a newjudicial decision of relevance and high authority; nor did counsel fail to direct ourattention to a relevant legislative provision or authoritative decision. It is the thirdcategory of case which Mr Stockman relies on. Accordingly, the question here iswhether for some other very special reason justice requires that the judgment berecalled.[10] Mr Stockman's application is based primarily on his assertion of corruption.If there was any basis for that allegation we agree such a very special reason wouldexist. We are, however, satisfied that there is not. We base that conclusion on thefollowing analysis.[11] In support of his argument this Court had failed to listen to him, Mr Stockmanreferred to the following passage of our judgment:6[2] The background can be summarised briefly. Mr Stockman laid acomplaint about counselling services he received from a member ofthe respondent association, the New Zealand Assoc of Counsellors Inc4 Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633.5 We note there is no right of appeal against a decision of this Court declining an application forleave to appeal.6 Stockman v New Zealand Assoc of Counsellors Inc, above n 3.(NZACI). NZACI dealt with his complaint but not to Mr Stockman'ssatisfaction, so he commenced proceedings in the High Court.[12] Mr Stockman asserted that summary was erroneous, and evidenced a failure tolisten to him, because:(a) he had no idea how the respondent had dealt with the complaint heoriginally made about counselling services provided to him and hiswife;(b) he had commenced proceedings in the High Court in 2012 as a resultof which a judgment in his favour ordered NZACI to include certainevidence in a fresh inquiry into the counsellor's practice;7 and(c) the current proceedings before the High Court stemmed from NZACIfailing to follow the directions given in that High Court judgment.[13] We acknowledge that our summary does not deal with every step inMr Stockman's litigation against the respondent. However, the summary is materiallyaccurate. At [27] and [29] of his statement of claim in this proceeding, dated23 March 2017, Mr Stockman refers to his letters of complaint to NZACI of15 October and 20 October 2013, and to the subsequent — and in his view —unsatisfactory response by NZACI to him. The causes of action he pleaded allegedbreaches of natural justice occasioned by NZACI's complaints process, including afailure to resolve his complaints fairly and speedily. We are satisfied our admittedlybrief summary of the background was accurate.[14] Similarly, we are satisfied that at [5] and [6] of our judgment we did deal withthe substance of Mr Stockman's grounds for his application for leave.[15] The grounds Mr Stockman raises for recall are, therefore, without substance.Accordingly, the application for recall is declined.7 Stockman v New Zealand Assoc of Counsellors Inc [2013] NZHC 2267, [2013] NZAR 1233.[16] There is no order as to costs.Solicitors:Morrison Kent, Wellington for Respondent