ATTORNEY-GENERAL V EDMONDS& ORS CA CA97/05
The Court concluded there was no inconsistency because the July 1996 date in the declaration expressly incorporates the twelve month period of grace applied to area A by this Court and by Miller J; accordingly the application for recall was not justified and is dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-5601b36d_e8c0_4e1b_af71_a8f774ee5ffd.pdf
- Parties
- Appellant: The Attorney-General; Respondent: Terence Desmond Mead Edmonds; Respondent: David John McIntyre Edmonds; Respondent: Hylton Andrew McIntyre Edmonds; Respondent: Jennifer Hatfield McIntyre Wilson
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 10 August 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Application for Recall (court of Appeal)
- Outcome
- Application for recall dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Declaratory Relief, Application for Recall, Period of Grace, Interpretation of Declarations
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The Attorney-General
Appellant
Terence Desmond Mead Edmonds
Respondent
David John McIntyre Edmonds
Respondent
Hylton Andrew McIntyre Edmonds
Respondent
Jennifer Hatfield McIntyre Wilson
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Recall (court of Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there is an inconsistency in the declaration
- 2 Whether the Court improperly applied a twelve month period of grace to area A
- 3 Whether the application for recall of the judgment should be granted
Ratio Decidendi
The Court concluded there was no inconsistency because the July 1996 date in the declaration expressly incorporates the twelve month period of grace applied to area A by this Court and by Miller J; accordingly the application for recall was not justified and is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application for recall dismissed.
Orders
- Application for recall dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V EDMONDS& ORS CA CA97/05 10 August 2006IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA97/05BETWEEN THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Appellant AND TERENCE DESMOND MEAD EDMONDS, DAVID JOHN MCINTYRE EDMONDS, HYLTON ANDREW MCINTYRE EDMONDS AND JENNIFER HATFIELD MCINTYRE WILSON Respondents Court: Glazebrook, Hammond and Ellen France JJ Counsel: M T Parker, T G Stapleton and J R Burns for Appellant J O Upton QC and D A Laurenson for Respondents R J B Fowler and P C Mitchell for Intervener Judgment: 10 August 2006 at 11 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURT The application for recall is dismissed. ____________________________________________________________________ REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Ellen France J) [1] The memorandum of counsel for the appellant dated 5 July 2006 refers. Counsel for the Edmonds family and for the Wellington City Council have advised they do not wish to make any submissions on the memorandum.[2] The Court has considered the memorandum and concluded that there is no inconsistency in the declaration. [3] The Court did apply a twelve month "period of grace" to area A. However, as the judgment makes clear in paragraphs [123] and [124] the July 1996 date in the declaration incorporates the period of grace treated as appropriate by this Court and by Miller J. [4] The application for recall is dismissed.Solicitors: Crown Law Office, Wellington, for Appellant Bisson Moss, Napier, for Respondents Phillips Fox, Wellington, for Intervener