Dunstan v Bank of New Zealand

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 62/2023
[2023] NZSC 110

BETWEEN	TANYA FELICITY DUNSTAN Applicant
AND	BANK OF NEW ZEALAND First Respondent EDDIE (WHETŪ) RANGI Second Respondent

Court:	O’Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	22 August 2023

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 26 July 2023 (Dunstan v Bank of New Zealand [2023] NZSC 89) is dismissed.

B There is no order as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

On 26 July 2023, this Court delivered a judgment[1] dismissing Ms Dunstan’s an application for leave to appeal against decision of the High Court.[2]
[1] Dunstan v Bank of New Zealand [2023] NZSC 89.
[2]Dunstan v Bank of New Zealand [2023] NZHC 200 (Associate Judge Lester).
On 7 August 2023, the applicant filed an application for recall of this Court’s judgment.
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 respondents were not called upon to make submissions on the recall application, we make no award of costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Dunstan v Bank of New Zealand, Tanya Felicity Dunstan sought to appeal the decision of the High Court, which had dismissed her case against the Bank of New Zealand and Eddie (Whētū) Rangi. The Supreme Court initially dismissed Dunstan's application for leave to appeal, but she subsequently sought a recall of this decision. The matter came before Justices O’Regan, Ellen France, and Williams, with Dunstan representing herself and the respondents not making submissions on the recall application.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the application for recall of the Supreme Court's earlier judgment should be granted. The Court considered the grounds for recall, which Dunstan outlined in her application, and determined whether any of these grounds provided sufficient basis to warrant a recall of the earlier judgment.

The Court found that none of the grounds raised by Dunstan constituted a valid basis for recalling the earlier judgment. As such, the application for recall was dismissed. The Court did not deem it necessary to award any costs to the respondents, given that they had not been required to submit on the recall application. This outcome effectively concludes the matter, with the earlier dismissal of the appeal upheld.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established