Complete Construction Ltd v Siemer [2020] NZHC 1740

Complete Construction Ltd v Siemer [2020] NZHC 1740

The recall application is dismissed because the Palmer J decision relied on was not of such clear, high authority to satisfy the Horowhenua exception, the matters challenged were substantive findings of fact and law already addressed in the judgment and are properly pursued by appeal, and no very special reason existed to justify recall; the judge further concluded the failure to obtain leave was an irregularity that did not render the setting aside application a nullity.

Citation
[2020] NZHC 1740
Parties
Judgment Creditor/respondent: Complete Construction Limited; Judgment Debtor/applicant: Vincent Ross Siemer
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
17 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy; Insolvency Act 2006 / Recall Application (decision)
Outcome
Application to recall the judgment dismissed
Legal Topics
Recall of Judgment, Banned Litigant Orders, Set Aside Application, Leave to File, Costs
Insolvency Civil Procedure Judicial Administration Access to Courts Recall of Judgment Banned Litigant Orders Set Aside Application Leave to File +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Complete Construction Limited

Judgment Creditor/respondent

Vincent Ross Siemer

Judgment Debtor/applicant

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy; Insolvency Act 2006 / Recall Application (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court should recall its earlier judgment under r 11.9 High Court Rules
  2. 2 Whether intervening judicial authority (Palmer J) rendered the original judgment a nullity or otherwise justified recall
  3. 3 Whether failure to obtain leave before filing a setting aside application rendered that application a nullity

Ratio Decidendi

The recall application is dismissed because the Palmer J decision relied on was not of such clear, high authority to satisfy the Horowhenua exception, the matters challenged were substantive findings of fact and law already addressed in the judgment and are properly pursued by appeal, and no very special reason existed to justify recall; the judge further concluded the failure to obtain leave was an irregularity that did not render the setting aside application a nullity.

Court Disposition

Application to recall the judgment dismissed

Orders

  • Recall application dismissed
  • No order for costs