Bhullar v Auckland Co-Operative Taxi Society Limited [2018] NZHC 1375 (11 June 2018)

Last Updated: 24 September 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-836 [2018] NZHC 1375

BETWEEN	HARPREET BHULLAR Applicant
AND	AUCKLAND CO-OPERATIVE TAXI SOCIETY LIMITED Respondent

Hearing:	[On the papers]
Counsel:	R S Pidgeon for Applicant G J Judd QC for Respondent
Judgment:	11 June 2018

JUDGMENT No 2 OF JAGOSE J

This judgment is delivered by me on 11 June 2018 at 4.45 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

.....................................................

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Counsel:

R S Pidgeon, Barrister, Auckland G J Judd QC, Auckland

BHULLAR v AUCKLAND CO-OPERATIVE TAXI SOCIETY LTD No 2 [2018] NZHC 1375 [11 June 2018]

[1] In my judgment of 4 May 2018, I made an interim order prohibiting the respondent from striking the applicant, Mr Bhullar, off its register of members.

[2] Mr Bhullar now seeks I correct that order, which he contends in terms of HCR 11.10(b) “is drawn up so that it does not express what was decided and intended”. Mr Bhullar’s counsel, Richard Pidgeon, implies the terms of the order at
[13] are inconsistent with my earlier discussion of a possible order at [10]; a consistent order would have stayed the respondent’s stage two disciplinary hearing (stage one having determined Mr Bhullar was in breach of the respondent’s rules).

[3] I doubt HCR 11.10(b) can be relied upon to address contended internal ambiguity in a judgment. That paragraph more naturally refers to the formal order ‘drawn up’ in the wake of the judgment. And the cases are clear the rule may not be invoked to improve on, or to permit second thoughts about, the judgment obtained.¹ I was at least clear at [12] the Court was not to become engaged in the respondent’s internal administration of its disciplinary procedures, such as the stay then sought.

[4] In any event, the order is clear: pending further order of this Court, the respondent is not to strike Mr Bhullar off its register of members.

[5] I therefore dismiss the application, with 2B costs to the respondent.




—Jagose J

1. Eg, Broadview Investments Co Pty Ltd v Corporate Interiors (NZ) Ltd HC Wellington CP123/92, 12 August 1998