Little v New Zealand Law Society

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 40/2022
[2022] NZSC 103

BETWEEN	TIMOTHY GRAEME LITTLE Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY Respondent

Court:	O’Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person P N Collins for Respondent
Judgment:	26 August 2022

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 23 June 2022 (Little v New Zealand Law Society [2022] NZSC 78) is dismissed.

BThere is no order as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

In a judgment delivered on 23 June 2022,[1] this Court dismissed Mr Little’s application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal.[2] He now applies for recall of this Court’s decision.
[1]Little v New Zealand Law Society [2022] NZSC 78 (O’Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ).
[2]Little v New Zealand Law Society [2022] NZCA 121 (Kós P, Brown and Goddard JJ).
The respondent filed a memorandum recording its opposition to the application for recall while indicating it did not intend to file submissions unless directed to do so. We do not require further assistance from the respondent.
Recall may be granted in the following three circumstances:[3]
[F]irst, where since the hearing there has been an amendment to a relevant statute or regulation or a new judicial decision of relevance and high authority; secondly, where counsel have failed to direct the Court’s attention to a legislative provision or authoritative decision of plain relevance; and thirdly, where for some other very special reason justice requires that the judgment be recalled.
[3]Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633; approved in this Court in Saxmere Co Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Co Ltd (No 2) [2009] NZSC 122, [2010] 1 NZLR 76 at [2]; and Uhrle v R [2020] NZSC 62, [2020] 1 NZLR 286 at [29].
Mr Little filed 36 pages of initial submissions and then 16 pages of additional submissions. He does not say which of the three circumstances he relies on. Nothing in his submissions relates to the first circumstance, so we proceed on the basis that he relies on one or both of the second and third circumstances.
Most arguments advanced by Mr Little merely relitigate points already raised in his submissions and rejected by this Court in refusing leave to appeal. They do not provide any ‘very special reason’ for recall.[4]
[4]See Biddle v R [2021] NZSC 129 at [4]; and Foster v R [2021] NZSC 130 at [4].
Mr Little raises two new matters which he says are of ‘plain relevance’: the first, an Australian authority; the second, a New Zealand legislative provision. These relate to the second of the recall pathways. The Australian authority is Victorian Building Authority v Andriotis, decided by the Australian High Court.[5] Mr Little says ss 5 and 45 of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997 require this Court to consider and apply that case.[6] The New Zealand legislative provision Mr Little cites is s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Mr Little says the lower Courts denied his right to justice as guaranteed by that provision.
[5]Victorian Building Authority v Andriotis [2019] HCA 22, (2019) 268 CLR 168.
[6]Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997, s 5(1) provides: “Every law of New Zealand must, unless it or this Act otherwise expressly provides, be read subject to this Act.” Section 45 provides: “For the purpose of promoting consistency between decisions made by the Tribunal for the purposes of this Act and the Australian Tribunal for the purposes of the Australian Act, the Tribunal must have regard to decisions made by the Australian Tribunal for the purposes of the Australian Act.”
Victorian Building Authority v Andriotis relates to a separate issue which was decided in the context of entirely different facts. It is not an authoritative decision of ‘plain relevance’.
Section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, while relevant in a general sense to all judicial decision making, is not engaged on these facts. The lower Courts considered Mr Little’s arguments and dismissed them with reasons. This Court declined leave in accordance with s 74 of the Senior Courts Act 2016. Mr Little’s right to justice under s 27 cannot, on any view, be said to have been breached.
The application for recall is dismissed.
There is no order as to costs.

Solicitors:

New Zealand Law Society, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Little v New Zealand Law Society, the applicant, Timothy Graeme Little, sought recall of the Supreme Court's decision to dismiss his application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal had ruled against Mr Little in his application for judicial review of the New Zealand Law Society's decision to refuse him admission to the roll of practising lawyers. The Supreme Court, in a previous judgment, had declined Mr Little's application for leave to appeal on the basis that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court in this recall application were whether the circumstances existed for the Court to recall its earlier judgment. The recall criteria include an amendment to relevant statutes or regulations, the failure of counsel to direct the Court's attention to a relevant legislative provision or decision, or if justice requires the judgment to be recalled for another special reason. Mr Little's submissions did not align with any of these criteria. He did not address the amendment of statutes or regulations since the initial judgment, and his arguments were largely a reiteration of points previously rejected by the Court. Additionally, the Australian authority and New Zealand legislative provision he cited were not deemed to be of plain relevance to the matter at hand.

The Supreme Court found that Mr Little's submissions did not provide a very special reason for recalling the earlier judgment. The Australian case he cited, Victorian Building Authority v Andriotis, dealt with a separate issue and did not impact the Court's earlier decision. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 section 27, while relevant in a general sense, was not engaged on the specific facts of this case. The Court concluded that Mr Little's right to justice was not breached and dismissed the application for recall. The Court made no order as to costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established