John Kenneth Slavich v The Judges of the Supreme Court

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

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).
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.
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

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].
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.
The application for recall is therefore dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, John Kenneth Slavich, sought a recall of the Supreme Court of New Zealand's judgment delivered on 1 September 2015, which dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Supreme Court Registrar. The court was required to determine whether the earlier judgment should be recalled because it allegedly failed to address the contention that a High Court decision declaring Mr Slavich a vexatious litigant was a legal "nullity". The central issue was whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal in contradiction of the High Court's declaration of Mr Slavich as a vexatious litigant under section 88B of the Judicature Act 1908.

The Supreme Court found that the argument regarding the High Court's judgment being a "nullity" was explicitly acknowledged and rejected in the earlier review decision. The court further confirmed that it did not have the power to grant leave to appeal in contradiction of section 88B of the Judicature Act, as correctly stated by William Young J. The court held that to the extent the application for recall was part of a continuing attempt to subvert the High Court order, it constituted an abuse of process. Consequently, the application for recall was dismissed.

The Supreme Court's judgment was clear in its reasoning and steadfast in its decision. The court did not find merit in Mr Slavich's contentions and dismissed the application for recall. The court's reasoning was grounded in the earlier review decision and the established legal framework, particularly section 88B of the Judicature Act. The dismissal of the application for recall was a final determination on the matter, barring any further attempts by Mr Slavich to challenge the earlier judgment through similar means.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established