PETER GERARD STOCKMAN v NEW ZEALAND ASSOCIATION OF COUNSELLORS INCORPORATED [2016] NZSC 35
The Court's statement that it was not satisfied it was necessary in the interests of justice to hear the appeal because no public or general importance was raised and there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice constitutes sufficient reasons under s16; accordingly the application to recall the judgment is...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] NZSC 35
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Gerard Stockman; Respondent: New Zealand Association of Counsellors Incorporated
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 7 April 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Recall Application Under S16 Supreme Court Act 2003 / Decision on Recall Application (dismissed)
- Outcome
- Application for recall of judgment dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Recall of Judgment, Reasons for Refusal to Grant Leave, Supreme Court Practice, Section 16 Supreme Court Act 2003
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Peter Gerard Stockman
Applicant
New Zealand Association of Counsellors Incorporated
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Recall Application Under S16 Supreme Court Act 2003 / Decision on Recall Application (dismissed)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Supreme Court failed to state reasons for refusing leave as required by s16 of the Supreme Court Act 2003
- 2 Whether the Court's failure (if any) justified recall of the Court's earlier judgment
Ratio Decidendi
The Court's statement that it was not satisfied it was necessary in the interests of justice to hear the appeal because no public or general importance was raised and there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice constitutes sufficient reasons under s16; accordingly the application to recall the judgment is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application for recall of judgment dismissed
Orders
- Application for recall dismissed
- No order for costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
PETER GERARD STOCKMAN v NEW ZEALAND ASSOCIATION OF COUNSELLORS INCORPORATED [2016] NZSC 35 [7 April 2016]NOTE: ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OFNAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OFTHIRD PARTY REMAINS IN FORCE.IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDSC 2/2016[2016] NZSC 35BETWEEN PETER GERARD STOCKMANApplicantAND NEW ZEALAND ASSOCIATION OFCOUNSELLORS INCORPORATEDRespondentCourt: William Young, Glazebrook and Arnold JJCounsel: Applicant in personC Heaton for RespondentJudgment: 7 April 2016JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for recall of the Court's judgment inStockman v New Zealand Association of Counsellors Inc[2016] NZSC 18 is dismissed.B There is no order for costs._____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] The applicant, Mr Stockman, asks the Court to recall its judgment inStockman v New Zealand Association of Counsellors Inc,1 in which theCourt declined Mr Stockman's application for leave to appeal. The ground of the recall application is that the Court failed to give reasons for its refusal, as required by s 16 of the Supreme Court Act 2003.1 Stockman v New Zealand Association of Counsellors Inc [2016] NZSC 18.[2] Section 16 provides:Court to state reasons for refusal to give leave(1) The Supreme Court must state its reasons for refusing to give leave to appeal to it.(2) The reasons may be stated briefly, and may be stated in general terms only.[3] In refusing leave, the Court stated that it was not satisfied that it was necessary in the interests of justice that it hear and determine the appeal because it did not consider that any issue of public or general importance was raised, or that there was any appearance of a miscarriage of justice. Those were its reasons for declining leave, and they meet the requirements of s 16.[4] Mr Stockman has raised nothing which justifies recall of the Court'sjudgment. Accordingly the application for recall is dismissed. There is no order for costs.Solicitors:Morrison Kent, Wellington for Respondent