Erwood v Minchin

[2025] NZSC 168

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

 SC 21/2025
 [2025] NZSC 168

BETWEEN	ROBERT ERWOOD Applicant
AND	GRAEME EDWARD MINCHIN First Respondent
ANTHONY DAVID BANBROOK Second Respondent
GLASGOW HARLEY Third Respondent
RAYLEE PATRICIA HARLEY Fourth Respondent
JOHN ROBIN HOLMES Fifth Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person First Respondent in person No appearance for Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents
Judgment:	20 November 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 22 September 2025 (Erwood v Minchin [2025] NZSC 122) is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

1. Mr Erwood seeks recall of this Court’s judgment of 22 September 2025 dismissing his application for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal and awarding costs of $500 in favour of the first respondent, Mr Minchin.[1]

Submissions

[1]Erwood v Minchin [2025] NZSC 122 (Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJ) [SC leave judgment].

1. Mr Erwood submits that the proceedings were defective because a litigation guardia         n was not appointed.  In particular he submits that a court should not award costs against a litigant who was deemed mentally incompetent without the appointment of a guardian.  Mr Erwood refers to r 4.30(1) of the High Court Rules 2016, which requires a person who is an incapacitated person to be represented by a litigation guardian, unless the court orders otherwise.  He also says he was not given a chance to be heard and submits that Mr Minchin did not apply for costs.

Our assessment

1. Regarding the appointment of a litigation guardian, this Court has previously dismissed an application by Mr Erwood for appointment of an amicus curiae[2] and an application for recall of that decision.[3]

   [2]Erwood v Minchin [2025] NZSC 21 (Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJ).

   [3]Erwood v Minchin [2025] NZSC 45 (Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJ).

2. Mr Erwood’s submissions largely attempt to re-litigate the issues already decided.  Nothing raised by Mr Erwood casts any doubt upon this Court’s conclusion that there was no merit in his application for leave to appeal.[4]  Nor does anything raised throw doubt on the conclusion that costs should be awarded to the successful party in the usual way.

Result

[4]SC leave judgment, above n 1, at [13]–[14].

1. The application for recall is dismissed.