Murray v West Coast Holdings Limited

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 13/2021
[2021] NZSC 114

BETWEEN	TREVOR JAMES MURRAY Applicant
AND	WEST COAST HOLDINGS LIMITED Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person S A McKenna for Respondent
Judgment:	9 September 2021

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 3 June 2021 (Murray v West Coast Holdings Ltd [2021] NZSC 55) is dismissed.

B There is no order as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

On 3 June 2021 this Court dismissed Mr Murray’s application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal.[1] Mr Murray applies for a recall of that judgment. This is on the basis that his application for leave to appeal was not filed out of time.
[1]Murray v West Coast Holdings Ltd [2021] NZSC 55.
We do not accept this submission. While Mr Murray attempted to file an application for leave to appeal within time, it was not in the prescribed form. An application for leave to appeal that met the procedural requirements was out of time.
Even if Mr Murray had been correct, and the application had been filed within time, there would be no utility in recalling the decision. This is because the Court held that the application could not have succeeded.
The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 3 June 2021 (Murray v West Coast Holdings Ltd [2021] NZSC 55) is dismissed.
There is no order as to costs as Mr Murray is bankrupt and the respondent was not called upon in any event to make submissions.

Solicitors:
McKenna King, Hamilton for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand dealt with an application for recall in the case of Murray v West Coast Holdings Limited. Trevor James Murray sought to challenge the Court's earlier decision that dismissed his application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal. West Coast Holdings Limited opposed the recall application. The Court was required to determine whether the recall application was meritorious, specifically whether the earlier judgment should be recalled because the application for leave to appeal was not filed out of time as initially determined.

The Court considered the procedural aspects of Mr Murray's application for leave to appeal. It was noted that while Mr Murray attempted to file the application within the required time, it was not in the prescribed form, rendering it procedurally defective. The Court held that even if the application had been timely, it would not have succeeded, as the substantive grounds for leave to appeal were insufficient. Consequently, the Court found no merit in recalling its earlier judgment because it would not have altered the outcome.

The Supreme Court dismissed Mr Murray's application for recall, affirming the earlier decision. The Court held that the recall application was without merit, as the procedural issues with the application for leave to appeal were fatal. Additionally, the Court found that there was no utility in recalling the earlier judgment because the substantive application for leave to appeal would not have succeeded regardless of its timeliness. Consequently, the Court made no order regarding costs, given Mr Murray's bankruptcy and the respondent's lack of need to respond to the recall application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established