Douglas Banks and Christine Banks v Grey District Council

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 114/2015
[2015] NZSC 183

BETWEEN	DOUGLAS BANKS AND CHRISTINE SANDRA BANKS Applicants
AND	GREY DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	Applicants in person J Shackleton for Respondent
Judgment:	1 December 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

In a decision dated 28 October 2015, this Court dismissed Mr and Mrs Banks’ application for leave to appeal to this Court against a decision of the Court of Appeal.[1]
[1]Banks v Grey District Council [2015] NZSC 158.
On 2 November 2015, Mr and Mrs Banks filed a memorandum which was, in substance, an application for recall of this Court’s judgment. On 4 and 9 November 2015, Mr and Mrs Banks filed two supplementary memoranda.
By judgment dated 11 November 2015, this Court rejected the recall application on the basis that it mirrored their application for leave to appeal and attempted to re-argue the points dismissed in this Court’s leave judgment.[2]
[2]Banks v Grey District Council [2015] NZSC 172.
By e-mail dated 23 November 2015, the Mr and Mrs Banks contacted the Registry of this Court and asked if the Court would address the second and third memoranda that were filed with respect to the above recall application. We will treat this letter as a second application for recall.
While this Court did not specifically mention the two additional memoranda in its recall judgment, the Court considered all the material submitted by Mr and Mrs Banks in dismissing the application.
All three memoranda attempted to re-argue points that were the subject of the application for leave to appeal. The criteria for recall are not met and the application is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Simpson Grierson, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Douglas and Christine Banks brought a case against the Grey District Council, contesting a decision made by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court of New Zealand, presided over by Justices William Young, Glazebrook, and O'Regan, reviewed the case. The Banks sought leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision, which had previously been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Following this dismissal, the Banks filed a memorandum requesting the recall of the Supreme Court's judgment. The Court of Appeal had already dismissed the Banks' application for leave to appeal, and the Supreme Court, in its subsequent judgment, rejected the recall application on the grounds that it merely reiterated the arguments dismissed in the earlier appeal. The Banks then submitted two supplementary memoranda and later requested that the Court consider these additional documents in relation to the recall application.

The legal issues in this case centred on the grounds and criteria for recalling a judgment in the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The Banks argued that the Court should reconsider its previous decision based on the new submissions they had made. The primary issue was whether the new material provided sufficient grounds to warrant a recall of the Supreme Court's earlier judgment dismissing the leave to appeal. The Banks needed to demonstrate that the recall criteria had been met, which typically involves showing that there has been a significant change in the law or facts, or that a manifest injustice has occurred.

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the Banks' submissions, noting that the additional memoranda did not introduce new legal arguments or evidence that warranted reconsideration of the earlier judgment. The Court held that the Banks' submissions were an attempt to re-argue the points that had already been dismissed, and did not meet the stringent criteria for recall. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for recall, reaffirming that the Banks' submissions did not present any new grounds or manifest injustice that would justify revisiting the earlier decision. The Court's decision underscored the importance of the recall criteria and the need for significant new developments to warrant such a reconsideration.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established