Douglas Banks and Christine Banks v Grey District Council

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 114/2015
[2015] NZSC 172

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:	11 November 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 is, in substance, an application for recall of this Court’s judgment.
The substance of Mr and Mrs Banks’ recall application mirrors their application for leave to appeal and attempts to re-argue the points dismissed in our leave judgment. This does not provide a proper basis for recall.

The application for recall is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Simpson Grierson, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Douglas Banks and Christine Banks versus Grey District Council was brought before the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The Banks sought to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal, which had previously dismissed their case. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the Banks' application for leave to appeal on 28 October 2015. Subsequently, the Banks filed a memorandum on 2 November 2015, seeking recall of the Supreme Court's judgment. They aimed to re-argue the points that were dismissed in the leave judgment. The court was tasked with deciding whether the Banks' application for recall was valid and warranted a reconsideration of their case.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Banks' application for recall provided sufficient grounds to warrant a reconsideration of the Supreme Court's judgment dismissing their leave to appeal. The Banks' memorandum attempted to re-argue the same points that were previously dismissed. The court needed to determine if this constituted a proper basis for recall, or if the Banks were merely seeking to relitigate their case under a different guise. The court's decision hinged on whether the Banks had demonstrated new and compelling reasons for the recall, beyond merely reiterating their previous arguments.

The Supreme Court held that the Banks' application for recall did not provide a proper basis for reconsideration. The court noted that the substance of the Banks' recall application mirrored their earlier application for leave to appeal, which was dismissed on substantive grounds. The Banks had not presented any new evidence or arguments that would warrant a recall of the judgment. The court concluded that the Banks were essentially attempting to re-argue their case, which was not permissible under the rules governing recall applications. Consequently, the application for recall was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established