PRANFIELD HOLDINGS LIMITED V THE MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND ORS SC 47/2008
Leave to appeal was refused because (1) the misfeasance ground did not raise any point of general or public importance and was premised on concurrent factual findings below, and (2) the breach of statutory duty and negligence grounds, while theoretically capable of raising important legal issues, lacked any real...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SC 47/2008
- Parties
- Applicant: PRANFIELD HOLDINGS LIMITED; First Respondent: THE MINISTER OF FISHERIES; Second Respondent: THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF FISHERIES; Third Respondent: THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES/MINISTRY OF FISHERIES; Applicant: UNITED FISHERIES LIMITED; First Respondent: THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES AND THE MINISTRY OF FISHERIES; Second Respondent: THE MINISTER OF FISHERIES; Third Respondent: THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF FISHERIES
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 22 October 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Leave Application Dismissed by Supreme Court (judgment)
- Outcome
- Applications for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Misfeasance in Public Office, Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Leave to Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
PRANFIELD HOLDINGS LIMITED
Applicant
THE MINISTER OF FISHERIES
First Respondent
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF FISHERIES
Second Respondent
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES/MINISTRY OF FISHERIES
Third Respondent
UNITED FISHERIES LIMITED
Applicant
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES AND THE MINISTRY OF FISHERIES
First Respondent
THE MINISTER OF FISHERIES
Second Respondent
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF FISHERIES
Third Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Leave Application Dismissed by Supreme Court (judgment)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether misfeasance in public office ground raises a point of general or public importance warranting leave
- 2 Whether breach of statutory duty claim raises matters of law of general importance
- 3 Whether negligence claim has sufficient merit and factual support to justify leave
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was refused because (1) the misfeasance ground did not raise any point of general or public importance and was premised on concurrent factual findings below, and (2) the breach of statutory duty and negligence grounds, while theoretically capable of raising important legal issues, lacked any real factual support and the applicants' chances of success were so slight that granting leave would not be in the interests of justice.
Court Disposition
Applications for leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
- The applicants are to pay the respondents costs in the sum of $2500.00 plus disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
PRANFIELD HOLDINGS LIMITED V THE MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND ORS SC 47/2008 22 October 2008IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 47/2008 [2008] NZSC 86BETWEEN PRANFIELD HOLDINGS LIMITED Applicant AND THE MINISTER OF FISHERIES First Respondent AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF FISHERIES Second Respondent AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES/MINISTRY OF FISHERIES Third RespondentSC 47/2008BETWEEN UNITED FISHERIES LIMITED Applicant AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE DIRECTOR- GENERAL OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES AND THE MINISTRY OF FISHERIES First Respondent AND THE MINISTER OF FISHERIES Second Respondent AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF FISHERIES Third RespondentCourt: Blanchard, Tipping and McGrath JJ Counsel: T J Castle and K G Reid for Applicants D B Collins QC and P A McCarthy for Respondents Judgment: 22 October 2008JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed. B The applicants are to pay the respondents costs in the sum of $2500.00 plus disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. REASONS[1] The applicants seek leave to appeal on the following causes of action, each of which was rejected in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal: misfeasance in public office; breach of statutory duty; and negligence. There are two other grounds upon which the applicants seek leave if they are successful in obtaining leave on any of the three grounds just referred to. [2] We do not consider any point of general or public importance arises in relation to the misfeasance ground. In that respect, there are concurrent factual findings below. We are not persuaded that it is necessary in the interests of justice to give leave for a third, largely factual, examination of this cause of action. [3] The other two causes of action are in theory capable of raising matters of general and public importance. We are satisfied, however, that the applicants' chances of success upon them are so slight that it would not be appropriate to grant leave. Depending on the statutory context the legal issues which the applicants seek to raise might well justify the grant of leave in a case with more factual support for the allegations made. But in this case we are satisfied that it would not be in theinterests of justice to grant leave because of the lack of any real factual support for the legal allegations which the applicants seek to raise in this Court.Solicitors: Goodman Steven Tavendale & Reid, Christchurch for Applicants Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents