John Kenneth Slavich v Attorney-General

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 94/2013
[2014] NZSC 22

BETWEEN	JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH Applicant
AND	ATTORNEY-GENERAL Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, William Young and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person P J Gunn for Respondent
Judgment:	19 March 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The applications for an amendment of the judgment of 26 November 2013 and its recall are declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Slavich requested by email that the Court amend the judgment of 26 November 2013[1] so that it states that security is to be provided by 13 December 2013. He has subsequently applied for the judgment to be recalled.
[1]Slavich v Attorney-General [2013] NZSC 130.
We are not sure why the amendment was sought. If Mr Slavich does not intend to provide security, the amendment proposed would have no practical point. And if he does intend to provide security, he should just do so as the order fixing the time for providing security was not made on an “unless” basis.
The recall application raises nothing warranting the recall of the 26 November 2013 judgment.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

John Kenneth Slavich, the applicant, sought to amend and recall a judgment given by the Supreme Court of New Zealand on 26 November 2013. The respondent, the Attorney-General, was the defendant in the original case. The applicant requested that the judgment be amended to state that security should be provided by 13 December 2013 and later applied for the judgment to be recalled. The Court, consisting of Elias CJ, William Young, and Arnold JJ, heard the case with the applicant representing himself and P J Gunn representing the Attorney-General.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the judgment should be amended to state that security was to be provided by 13 December 2013 and whether the judgment should be recalled. The Court questioned the purpose of the proposed amendment, as if the applicant did not intend to provide security, the amendment would have no practical effect. Furthermore, if the applicant did intend to provide security, he should have done so as the order for providing security was not conditional. The recall application did not provide any grounds warranting the recall of the judgment.

The Court declined both the application for an amendment of the judgment and its recall. The Court's reasoning was that the proposed amendment would have no practical effect if the applicant did not intend to provide security and if he did intend to provide security, he should have done so. Furthermore, the recall application did not provide any valid grounds for the recall of the judgment. The Court's decision was that the applications for an amendment of the judgment and its recall are declined.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established