Erwood v Minchin

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

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].

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

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).
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].

The application for recall is dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Erwood v Minchin, the applicant, Robert Erwood, sought recall of the Supreme Court's judgment from September 2025, which had dismissed his application for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal. The judgment also awarded costs of $500 to the first respondent, Graeme Edward Minchin. The respondents to the recall application were Minchin, Anthony David Banbrook, Glasgow Harley, Raylee Patricia Harley, and John Robin Holmes. The hearing was presided over by Glazebrook, Ellen France, and Williams JJ, with Erwood representing himself and Minchin appearing in person. The second, third, fourth, and fifth respondents did not appear.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the proceedings were defective due to the absence of a litigation guardian, and whether Erwood was entitled to a hearing before costs were awarded. Erwood argued that the court should not have awarded costs against him without the appointment of a guardian, citing rule 4.30(1) of the High Court Rules 2016. He also contended that he was not given a chance to be heard and that Minchin had not applied for costs. The court needed to determine if these arguments were valid and if they provided grounds for recalling the earlier judgment.

The court dismissed Erwood's application for recall, finding that his submissions largely sought to re-litigate issues already decided. The court had previously dismissed Erwood's applications for an amicus curiae and for recall of that decision. The court concluded that nothing raised by Erwood cast any doubt on the earlier conclusion that there was no merit in his application for leave to appeal or that costs should be awarded to the successful party. Therefore, the application for recall was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the application for recall of the Supreme Court's judgment of 22 September 2025 was dismissed. The court found that Erwood's arguments did not provide sufficient grounds for recalling the earlier judgment and that the original decision stood.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established