IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 75/2005
[2006] NZSC 25

BETWEEN GOVERNORS LIMITED
First Appellant
AND STEPHEN KEVIN CHAMBERLAIN
Second Appellant

AND GEORGE ALBERT ANDERSON AND
MARGARET ADAIR ANDERSON
First Respondents
AND THOMAS MACKINNON ANDERSON
Second Respondent

Court: Tipping, McGrath and Anderson JJ
Counsel: D G Dewar and J C Moore for First and Second Appellants
N Levy for First and Second Respondents

Judgment: 5 April 2006

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

REASONS

[1] The appellants seek leave to appeal against decisions of the Court of Appeal declining to admit further evidence on an application for recall and reassessing damages for breach of a lease. Leaving aside whether the Court of Appeal had the power to admit new evidence on a recall application, we are satisfied that the new evidence here went far wider than the legitimate compass of that application.

Furthermore, we can see no basis for concluding that the way the Court of Appeal 2 exercised its discretion in this case raises any matter of general or public importance or of commercial significance.

[2] The second limb of the intended appeal concerned the way in which the Court of Appeal dealt with the question of damages. It depended substantially on the admission of the new evidence and, in any event, did not raise any matter of general principle or commercial significance. The damages issues were very much dependent on the particular facts of this case and the way it was pleaded.

[3] The appellants have not satisfied us that it is necessary in the interests of justice, within the meaning of s 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003, for leave to be granted on either point. The application for leave must therefore be dismissed.

Solicitors:
Thomas Dewar Sziranyi Druce, Lower Hutt for Appellants
Sladden Cochrane & Co, Wellington for Respondents

ENDS

© Scoop Media