Howard v Accident Compensation Corporation

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 42/2019
[2019] NZSC 92

BETWEEN	MAREE HOWARD Applicant
AND	ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Williams JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person P A McBride for Respondent
Judgment:	26 August 2019

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall of this Court’s judgment in Howard v Accident Compensation Corporation [2019] NZSC 78
is dismissed.

___________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks recall of this Court’s judgment dismissing her application for leave to appeal and awarding costs against her.[1]
[1]Howard v Accident Compensation Corporation [2019] NZSC 78.
The decision against which she sought to appeal was a decision of a Judge of the Court of Appeal upholding a decision of the Deputy Registrar of that Court to refuse to accept for filing an application for leave to appeal against a High Court decision on the basis that there was no right of appeal against the High Court decision.
The application for recall does not raise any matter that would justify the recall of this Court’s judgment. None of the grounds for recall set out in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) applies.[2] The application is therefore dismissed.
[2]Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633.
The Registrar is instructed to decline to accept for filing any further applications for recall.

Solicitors:
McBride Davenport James, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an application by Maree Howard, an applicant in person, against the Accident Compensation Corporation. Howard sought recall of the Court’s previous judgment which had dismissed her application for leave to appeal and awarded costs against her. The appeal was against a decision of the Court of Appeal, which upheld a decision of the Deputy Registrar to refuse to accept an application for leave to appeal against a High Court decision. The basis for the refusal was that there was no right of appeal against the High Court decision.

The legal issues before the Court were whether any of the grounds for recall, as set out in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2), applied to justify the recall of the previous judgment. The Court found that none of the grounds for recall applied in this case, and dismissed the application for recall. The Court instructed the Registrar to decline to accept for filing any further applications for recall.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the grounds for recall provided in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2), and the Court found that none of those grounds applied to the present case. The Court did not provide further details on the specific grounds for recall, but it is clear that the application was dismissed because it did not meet the criteria for recall.

The final orders of the Court were to dismiss the application for recall, and to instruct the Registrar to decline to accept for filing any further applications for recall. The Court did not provide any further orders or directions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established