SPURR V FARMLANDS FUEL LIMITED (FORMERLY CRT FUEL LIMITED) CA363/2013 [2014] NZCA 286

SPURR V FARMLANDS FUEL LIMITED (FORMERLY CRT FUEL LIMITED) CA363/2013 [2014] NZCA 286 [30 June 2014]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA363/2013[2014] NZCA 286BETWEEN STUART GRAEME SPURRAppellantAND FARMLANDS FUEL LIMITED(FORMERLY CRT FUEL LIMITED)RespondentCourt: Randerson, Stevens and French JJCounsel: Applicant in personM B Couling for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)30 June 2014 at 3.00 pmJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for recall is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Stevens J)[1] The applicant, Mr Spurr, seeks recall of this Court's judgment delivered on23 May 2014,1 dismissing his application for recall of an earlier decision of this Court2 declining to extend time for him to appeal a decision of the High Court adjudicating him bankrupt.3 The present application is more accurately described as1 Spurr v Farmland Fuels Ltd [2014] NZCA 196 [second recall decision].2 Spurr v CRT Fuel Ltd [2013] NZCA 567 [extension of time decision].3 CRT Fuel Ltd v Spurr HC Timaru CIV-2012-476-237, 30 April 2013.a third application to recall the first decision by this Court, declining to grant an extension of time to Mr Spurr.4[2] The grounds for seeking this latest recall essentially repeat those relied upon in the two prior unsuccessful applications. Mr Spurr also includes myriad additional grounds in his application relating to alleged fraud and injustice, all of which havebeen raised in various iterations in previous submissions. None of these provide abasis for this Court to reconsider its judgment declining to grant an extension oftime. The application for recall is dismissed for the same reasons as given in earlierjudgments.5[3] In the second recall decision we noted that repetitive applications byMr Spurr would be dealt with summarily.6 That approach has been followed withthis application. We also direct the Registrar not to accept for filing any furtherapplications for recall of our decision extending time by Mr Spurr.Solicitors:Anderson Lloyd, Dunedin for Respondent4 See second recall decision, above n 1, at [3] – that application for recall was also framed as an application to recall the first recall decision of this Court, Spurr v Farmlands Fuel Ltd [2014] NZCA 48 [first recall decision], but was treated as an application to recall the extension of time decision, in reliance on Colman v Attorney-General [2013] NZSC 59 at [1] and Peterson v Lucas [2014] NZSC 6 at [9].5 First recall decision, above n 4, at [6]–[14] and second recall decision, above n 1, at [5]–[8].6 Second recall decision, above n 1, at [3].