Jones v Stace Hammond Lawyers

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA253/2022
[2023] NZCA 34

BETWEEN	GREGORY JOHN JONES Applicant
AND	STACE HAMMOND LAWYERS Respondent

Court:	Miller and Collins JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person GHJ Brant and EKJ Gamet for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	1 March 2023 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Recall application)

A The applications for recusal and recall are declined.
BWe make no order as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Miller J)

Mr Jones has moved for recall of the Court’s judgment of 22 September 2022.[1] He has also invited us, as we understand him, to recuse ourselves.
[1]Jones v Stace Hammond Lawyers [2022] NZCA 450.
In both cases the application is founded on contentions that his argument was misunderstood, mischaracterised, and dealt with unfairly. He speculates that this may be due to bias.
The judgment must speak for itself. We will not repeat what we said there. Nothing in the recall application persuades us that it has any merit, still less that the test for recall has been met.
The applications for recusal and recall are declined. We make no order as to costs.

Solicitors:
Stace Hammond Lawyers, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the applicant, Gregory John Jones, sought to challenge the judgment of the Court in relation to a matter involving Stace Hammond Lawyers. The nature of the dispute centred around the grounds for recall of the earlier judgment of the Court and an invitation for the Court to recuse itself. The case was heard before Miller and Collins JJ, with the applicant representing himself, while GHJ Brant and EKJ Gamet appeared on behalf of the respondent.

The primary legal issues the Court needed to address were whether the judgment of the Court should be recalled and whether the judges should recuse themselves due to perceived bias. The applicant argued that his arguments had been misunderstood, mischaracterised, and dealt with unfairly, potentially indicating bias on the part of the judges. The Court needed to determine whether the applicant's grounds for recall and recusal were valid and whether they met the required threshold.

In dismissing both the recall application and the application for recusal, the Court found that the judgment spoke for itself and could not be swayed by the applicant's claims of misunderstanding and unfair treatment. The Court emphasised that the recall application did not persuade them that it had any merit, and therefore, the test for recall had not been met. Consequently, the applications for recusal and recall were declined, and no order was made regarding costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established