DFT v Auckland High Court

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 139 OF THE CARE OF CHILDREN ACT 2004, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B, 11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE

NOTE: HIGH COURT ORDER MADE IN [2021] NZHC 2080 PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF
DFT AND RMC REMAINS IN FORCE.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 18/2023
[2023] NZSC 78

BETWEEN	DFT Applicant
AND	AUCKLAND HIGH COURT First Respondent
ATTORNEY-GENERAL Second Respondent
NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY Third Respondent

Court:	O’Regan, Williams and Kós JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person No appearance for First Respondent D Jones for Second Respondent P N Collins for Third Respondent
Judgment:	29 June 2023

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for recall (DFT v Auckland High Court [2023] NZSC 57) is dismissed.

BThe applicant must pay to each of the second and third respondents costs of $500.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

On 17 May 2023, this Court issued a judgment dismissing an application by the applicant for leave to appeal against aspects of a decision of the Court of Appeal.[1] This Court ordered the applicant to pay each of the second and third respondents costs of $1,250.
[1]DFT v Auckland High Court [2023] NZSC 57. The decision of the Court of Appeal was DFT v JDN [2023] NZCA 15 (Cooper P, Courtney and Goddard JJ).
On 26 May 2023, the applicant filed an application for recall of this Court’s judgment and a cancellation of the costs order.
None of the matters raised by the applicant provide a basis for recall of the judgment. The application for recall is therefore dismissed.
As the second and third respondents were put to the trouble of filing submissions responding to the application for recall, they are entitled to costs. We make an order that the applicant must pay to each of the second and third respondents costs of $500 in respect of the present application.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Second Respondent

G D Smith, New Zealand Law Society, Wellington for Third Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand recently dismissed an application for recall of its earlier judgment, which had dismissed an appeal application by the applicant against a decision of the Court of Appeal. The applicant sought to recall the Supreme Court's judgment and cancel the costs order that accompanied it. The respondents were the Auckland High Court, the Attorney-General, and the New Zealand Law Society. The applicant appeared in person while the respondents were represented by counsel. The Court, consisting of O'Regan, Williams, and Kós JJ, found that the applicant's grounds for recall were insufficient and dismissed the application. The Court also ordered the applicant to pay the second and third respondents $500 each in costs for the recall application.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant's application for recall provided sufficient grounds to warrant setting aside the earlier judgment and costs order. The applicant had raised several grounds for recall, but the Court found that none of them provided a basis for recalling the earlier judgment. The Court also considered whether the second and third respondents were entitled to costs for the recall application, given that they had been put to the trouble of filing submissions in response to the application. The Court found that the respondents were entitled to costs and ordered the applicant to pay $500 each to the second and third respondents.

In dismissing the application for recall, the Court held that the applicant's grounds were insufficient to warrant setting aside the earlier judgment and costs order. The Court noted that the applicant had not identified any error in the earlier judgment that would warrant recall. The Court also found that the applicant had not shown that there were any new and significant matters that had arisen since the earlier judgment was made. The Court further held that the second and third respondents were entitled to costs for the recall application, as they had been put to the trouble of filing submissions in response to the application. The Court ordered the applicant to pay $500 each to the second and third respondents.

The Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed the applicant's application for recall and ordered the applicant to pay the second and third respondents $500 each in costs for the recall application. The Court found that the applicant's grounds for recall were insufficient to warrant setting aside the earlier judgment and costs order. The Court also held that the second and third respondents were entitled to costs for the recall application. The final orders of the Court are that the application for recall is dismissed and the applicant must pay the second and third respondents $500 each in costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established