Halse v Rangiura Trust Board

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 72/2024
[2025] NZSC 2

BETWEEN	ALLAN GEOFFREY HALSE Applicant
AND	RANGIURA TRUST BOARD First Respondent
NORRIS WARD MCKINNON LIMITED Second Respondent
SAMUEL WALLACE HOOD Third Respondent
ERIN REBEKAH ANDERSON Fourth Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person H M Twomey for First Respondent V S Wethey and R H Anderson for Second, Third and Fourth Respondents
Judgment:	20 February 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for recall is dismissed.

BThe Registrar is instructed not to accept any further application related to this matter.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

On 24 October 2024 this Court (Glazebrook, Ellen France and Miller JJ) dismissed Mr Halse’s application for leave to appeal.[1] An application for recall of that decision was dismissed (Glazebrook and Ellen France JJ) on 19 December 2024.[2] Mr Halse now applies for recall of the recall decision.

Background

[1]Halse v Rangiura Trust Board [2024] NZSC 143 [Leave decision] at [2]–[5]. Mr Halse sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal in H v RPW [2024] NZCA 263 (Wylie, Lang and Campbell JJ) upholding the decision of Moore J in Halse v Rangiura Trust Board [2023] NZHC 1519 to make an order under s 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016.

[2]Halse v Rangiura Trust Board [2024] NZSC 176 [Recall decision].

Mr Halse made his application for recall of the decision dismissing his leave application on the basis that Miller J, when in the Court of Appeal, had undertaken case management functions in a related application and had been the subject of an undetermined recusal application in that Court.
As noted above, the application for recall was dismissed. The Court (Glazebrook and Ellen France JJ) reviewed the recusal application in the Court of Appeal and the subsequent decision of the Court of Appeal to stay the related proceedings. It held that the case management functions Miller J had undertaken in that related proceeding did not provide any grounds for Miller J to have recused himself from hearing the application for leave to appeal in this Court.[3] In any event, the Court said that recall of the Court’s leave judgment would be pointless. The application would still have been dismissed as there would still not be “any realistic prospect that this Court would come to a different conclusion”.[4]
[3]At [4].
[4]At [5] citing Leave decision, above n 1, at [4].
Mr Halse now applies for recall of the recall decision on the basis that the remaining two judges should not have dealt with the recall application and in particular should not have decided there was no conflict without dealing with Mr Halse’s application to file affidavit evidence.

Discussion

Mr Halse has not identified any valid grounds for recall of the recall decision. It was appropriate in this case that the decision on the alleged conflict and the recall was made by the panel members who had no alleged conflict.
In terms of the application to file affidavit evidence, the basis for the recusal application in the Court of Appeal and the case management functions performed by Miller J were clear from the record. The Court would not have been assisted by affidavit evidence.

Result

The application for recall is dismissed.
There is no order for costs as the respondents were not required to file submissions.
The Registrar is instructed not to accept any further applications related to this matter.

Solicitors:
Robertsons, Auckland for First Respondent
Fee Langstone, Auckland for Second, Third and Fourth Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Allan Geoffrey Halse sought to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal in New Zealand, which upheld a judgment of the High Court. This Court initially dismissed Halse's application for leave to appeal. Following this, Halse applied for a recall of the dismissal of his leave application. The recall application was subsequently dismissed by Glazebrook and Ellen France JJ. Halse now seeks a recall of the recall decision, arguing that the remaining judges should not have dealt with the recall application.

The legal issues before the Court included whether there were valid grounds for recalling the recall decision, whether the judges who dismissed the recall application should have recused themselves, and whether the Court should have allowed Halse to file affidavit evidence. The Court considered whether the alleged conflict, concerning one judge's prior involvement in a related matter, warranted recusal, and whether the affidavit evidence would have assisted in the decision-making process.

The Court found that the remaining judges appropriately handled the recall application. The case management functions and the recusal application in the Court of Appeal did not create a conflict of interest for the judges in this Court. The Court held that there was no realistic prospect of a different outcome if the recall application had been dismissed. The Court further noted that the basis for the recusal application and the case management functions were clear from the record, and affidavit evidence would not have assisted the Court. Therefore, the application for recall of the recall decision was dismissed.

The Court also instructed the Registrar not to accept any further applications related to this matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established