AN (SC 12/2018) v Bupa Care Services NZ Limited

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 80 OF THE PROTECTION OF PERSONAL AND PROPERTY RIGHTS ACT 1988, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B TO 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE HTTPS:// CENTRE/MEDIA-INFORMATION/MEDIA-GUIDE/COURTS-WITH- SPECIAL-MEDIA-PROVISIONS/FAMILY-COURT.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 12/2018

[2018] NZSC 22

BETWEEN
AN (SC 12/2018)

Applicant

AND

BUPA CARE SERVICES NZ LIMITED

Respondent

BETWEEN
AN (SC 12/2018)

Applicant

AND

DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU

Respondent

Court: Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ

Counsel:

Applicant in person

K Laurenson for the District Court at Manukau

Judgment:

22 March 2018

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

REASONS

[1] The applicant seeks a recall of our judgment of 19 March 2018 dismissing two applications for leave to appeal.1

1 AN (SC 12/2018) v BUPA Care Services NZ Limited [2018] NZSC 20.

AN (SC 12/2018) v BUPA CARE SERVICES NZ LIMITED [2018] NZSC 22 [22 March 2018]

[2] The application discloses no basis for recall. The application for recall is accordingly dismissed.

[3] We direct the Registrar to reject any further application for recall of the judgment of 19 March 2018.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for the District Court at Manukau

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was presented with an application for recall of a previous judgment made by Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ on 19 March 2018. The applicant, AN, sought a recall of the judgment dismissing two applications for leave to appeal against the decision of the District Court at Manukau in the case of AN v BUPA Care Services NZ Limited. The applicant appeared in person while K Laurenson represented the District Court at Manukau. The judgment of dismissal was handed down on 22 March 2018.

The central legal issue the court needed to address was whether there was a valid basis for recalling the earlier judgment dismissing the two applications for leave to appeal. The court had to assess whether the applicant had presented any new evidence or legal arguments that warranted the reconsideration of the original decision.

The court found that the application for recall did not disclose any basis to justify a recall of the earlier judgment. It was determined that the applicant had not provided any new information or arguments that would warrant a reconsideration of the original decision. Consequently, the application for recall was dismissed. Furthermore, the court directed the Registrar to reject any further applications for recall of the judgment dated 19 March 2018.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established