Lewis v Hamilton Cosmopolitan Club Incorporated

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA126/2023
[2024] NZCA 82

BETWEEN	LISA ROCHELLE LEWIS Applicant
AND	HAMILTON COSMOPOLITAN CLUB INCORPORATED Respondent

Court:	French and Ellis JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in Person T C Tran for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	27 March 2024 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for recall of this Court’s judgment dated 5 October 2023 is declined.
BThe applicant is ordered to pay costs to the respondent for a standard application on a band A basis together with usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French J)

On 5 October 2023, this Court issued a judgment declining Ms Lewis leave to bring a second appeal.[1]
[1]Lewis v Hamilton Cosmopolitan Club Incorporated [2023] NZCA 484.
Ms Lewis has now applied to recall the judgment. The respondent opposes the application.
It is well established that an applicant seeking to recall a judgment faces a high threshold.[2] It is also well established that there are three categories of cases where recall may be granted:[3]
(a)since the hearing there has been a change to a relevant statute or regulation, or a new judicial decision of relevance and high authority has been issued;
(b)counsel have failed to direct the court’s attention to a legislative provision or authoritative decision of plain relevance; or
(c)for some other “very special reason” justice requires the judgment be recalled.
[2]Cummins v Body Corporate 172108 [2022] NZCA 153 at [12].
[3]Horowhenua County v Nash (2) [1968] NZLR 632 (HC) at 633 approved in Saxmere Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Co Ltd [2009] NZSC 122, [2010] 1 NZLR 76 at [2].
We are not persuaded that any of the matters raised by Ms Lewis’ application falls within any of those categories. The application is simply an attempt to relitigate issues which have already been addressed and that is not grounds for a recall.
The application is accordingly declined and the respondent is entitled to costs.

Outcome

The application to recall this Court’s judgment of 5 October 2023 is declined.
The applicant must pay the respondent costs for a standard application on a band A basis together with any disbursements.

Solicitors:
Webb Gould Law, Hamilton for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lisa Rochelle Lewis has applied to the Court of Appeal of New Zealand to recall a previous judgment issued on 5 October 2023 by French and Ellis JJ. The original case involved Lewis, the applicant, and the Hamilton Cosmopolitan Club Incorporated, the respondent. The nature of the dispute was not detailed in the judgment but presumably relates to an earlier decision made by the club that Lewis sought to appeal. The Court of Appeal declined Lewis’ application to recall the judgment, ordering her to pay the respondent’s costs.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the application to recall the earlier judgment met the criteria for such a recall. According to established legal principles, recall of a judgment is only granted in exceptional circumstances. These include changes in relevant statutes or regulations, the omission of significant legal precedents, or other very special reasons necessitating the recall. Lewis’ application did not meet any of these criteria. It was essentially an attempt to revisit arguments that had already been decided, which is not sufficient grounds for recall.

In declining the application, the Court noted that Lewis had not provided any new legal developments or authorities that would warrant reconsideration of the previous judgment. The Court emphasised that recall is not a mechanism for re-litigating issues. Since Lewis’ application did not present any new or exceptional circumstances, the Court found no basis to recall the earlier judgment. Consequently, the Court ordered Lewis to pay the respondent’s costs for the recall application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established