Legal Research
Cases
Harrison v Harrison

Harrison v Harrison

Case [2021] NZSC 136 14 October 2021

Appeal

Res Judicata

Recall of Judgment

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 81/2021
[2021] NZSC 136

BETWEEN	PAULINE JANICE HARRISON Applicant
AND	ADRIENNE HARRISON AND GRAEME ROSS HARRISON First Respondents NICOLAS HAMILTON BIRDSEY Second Respondent RAYMOND OWEN PARMENTER Third Respondent CHILDFUND NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Fourth Respondent ASB BANK LIMITED Fifth Respondent

Court:	William Young, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	14 October 2021

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 13 September 2021 (Harrison v Harrison [2021] NZSC 115) is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Ms Harrison has filed what she has described as “challenge application ex parte against [2021] NZSC 115 decision”. Although addressed to “head of bench”, we see it as being, in substance, a recall application in respect of our judgment of 13 September 2021[1] dismissing her application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal.[2] We propose to deal with it accordingly.
[1]Harrison v Harrison [2021] NZSC 115.
[2]Harrison v Harrison [2021] NZCA 301 (Cooper and Brown JJ).
In the document, Ms Harrison criticises extensively our earlier judgment. She maintains the key elements of the reasoning are wrong. She has not, however, raised any issue which would warrant us recalling that judgment. So, the application for recall is dismissed.

Details

AGLC: Harrison v Harrison [2021] NZSC 136
Case: [2021] NZSC 136
Decision Date: 14 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Pauline Janice Harrison filed an application for recall against the Court's judgment dated 13 September 2021. The respondents in this matter were Adrienne Harrison and Graeme Ross Harrison, Nicolas Hamilton Birdsey, Raymond Owen Parmenter, ChildFund New Zealand Limited, and ASB Bank Limited. The Court, comprising Justices William Young, O’Regan, and Ellen France, considered the application filed by Ms Harrison in person. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the earlier judgment dismissing Ms Harrison’s application for leave to appeal should be recalled.

The Court examined Ms Harrison's extensive criticisms of the earlier judgment but found no basis to warrant a recall. Ms Harrison's arguments focused on the perceived errors in the key elements of the Court's reasoning but did not identify any issue that would justify the recall of the judgment. The Court determined that the application for recall did not meet the criteria necessary for such an action, and thus, the application was dismissed. This decision upheld the integrity of the earlier judgment and maintained the procedural boundaries governing recall applications in the Supreme Court.

Orders