AMANDA ADELE WHITE v CHRISTOPHER MAURICE LYNCH [2017] NZSC 32

AMANDA ADELE WHITE v CHRISTOPHER MAURICE LYNCH [2017] NZSC 32

The recall application was dismissed because the applicants, when ordered to explain the relevance of the bank statements, failed to substantiate their position, thereby justifying the Court of Appeal's and this Court's characterisation of their conduct, and because the applicants' prior intemperate litigation history justified a direction that the Registrar not accept further applications concerning the same dispute.

Citation
[2017] 1 NZLR 710
Parties
First Applicant: Amanda Adele White; Second Applicant: Anne Leoline Emily Freeman; First Respondent: Christopher Maurice Lynch; Second Respondent: Stuart Gordon Spence
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
16 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Recall of Judgment / Decision on Recall Application
Outcome
Application to recall the judgment dismissed; Registrar directed not to accept further applications by the applicants in respect of their dispute with the respondents
Legal Topics
Recall of Judgment, Relevance of Evidence, Discovery Obligations, Filing Restrictions / Vexatious Litigant Orders
Civil Procedure Appeal Evidence Recall of Judgment Relevance of Evidence Discovery Obligations Filing Restrictions / Vexatious Litigant Orders

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amanda Adele White

First Applicant

Anne Leoline Emily Freeman

Second Applicant

Christopher Maurice Lynch

First Respondent

Stuart Gordon Spence

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Recall of Judgment / Decision on Recall Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court should recall its earlier judgment
  2. 2 Whether the applicants adequately substantiated the relevance of the bank statements when directed to do so
  3. 3 Whether the Court should direct the Registrar to refuse further applications by these applicants in respect of the dispute

Ratio Decidendi

The recall application was dismissed because the applicants, when ordered to explain the relevance of the bank statements, failed to substantiate their position, thereby justifying the Court of Appeal's and this Court's characterisation of their conduct, and because the applicants' prior intemperate litigation history justified a direction that the Registrar not accept further applications concerning the same dispute.

Court Disposition

Application to recall the judgment dismissed; Registrar directed not to accept further applications by the applicants in respect of their dispute with the respondents

Orders

  • The application to recall the judgment is dismissed.
  • The Registrar is directed not to accept any further applications by the applicants in respect of their dispute with the respondents.