John Kenneth Slavich v The Judges of the Supreme Court

[2015] NZSC 151

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

[2015] NZSC 151

BETWEEN	JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH Applicant
AND	THE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	22 October 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Background

1. Mr Slavich applies for a recall of this Court’s judgment in Slavich v The Judges of the Supreme Court delivered on 1 September 2015.[1]

   [1]Slavich v The Judges of the Supreme Court [2015] NZSC 130 (Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O’Regan JJ).

2. That judgment dismissed an application for review, pursuant to s 28(3) of the Supreme Court Act 2003, of a decision of William Young J, which in turn dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Supreme Court Registrar under s 28(2) of the Supreme Court Act.[2]

   [2]Slavich v The Judges of the Supreme Court [2015] NZSC 125.

3. Mr Slavich submits that the Court’s decision dated 1 September 2015 should be recalled because it did not deal with the contention that the High Court decision declaring Mr Slavich a vexatious litigant is, according to Mr Slavich, a legal “nullity”.

Disposition

1. The submission is not correct. The argument that the High Court judgment declaring Mr Slavich a vexatious litigant under s 88B of the Judicature Act 1908 is a “nullity” was explicitly acknowledged and rejected in our review decision.[3]  In any event, it was not relevant to the question of this Court’s jurisdiction to deal with Mr Slavich’s application for leave to appeal.[4]  As William Young J correctly stated, and as we confirmed in our review decision, this Court does not have power to grant leave in “contradiction” of s 88B of the Judicature Act.

   [3]Slavich v The Judges of the Supreme Court, above n 1, at [3]–[4]. 

   [4]At [4].

2. To the extent that the application for recall appears to be part of a continuing attempt by Mr Slavich to subvert the High Court order declaring him a vexatious litigant, it is also an abuse of process. 

3. The application for recall is therefore dismissed.