Lewis v Hamilton Cosmopolitan Club Incorporated

[2024] NZCA 82

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)

1. 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.

2. Ms Lewis has now applied to recall the judgment.  The respondent opposes the application.

3. 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].

4. 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.

5. The application is accordingly declined and the respondent is entitled to costs.

Outcome

1. The application to recall this Court’s judgment of 5 October 2023 is declined.

2. 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