Malcolm Edward Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 58/2015
[2015] NZSC 123

BETWEEN

MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON
Applicant

AND

REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT
First Respondent

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
Second Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person K Laurenson for the Respondents
Judgment:	4 August 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Rabson applies for the recall of this Court’s decision of 24 July 2015,[1] dismissing his application for leave to appeal against a decision of Randerson J which upheld a decision of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal refusing to dispense with security for costs.[2]
[1]Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court [2015] NZSC 113.
[2]Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court [2015] NZCA 129.
Mr Rabson essentially seeks to relitigate one of the same points the Court dealt with in its judgment. Nothing submitted provides grounds for the recall of our decision.
The application for recall is dismissed accordingly.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Malcolm Edward Rabson sought to appeal against the Registrar of the Supreme Court and the Ministry of Justice's decision to uphold the requirement for security for costs. Rabson's application for leave to appeal was initially dismissed by Randerson J, and subsequently, the Court of Appeal upheld this decision. Rabson then sought to recall the Supreme Court's decision dismissing his application for leave to appeal.

The central legal issue before the court was whether there were sufficient grounds to recall the Supreme Court's decision dismissing Rabson's application for leave to appeal. The court needed to determine if Rabson's arguments provided valid reasons to reconsider the earlier decision. The court considered whether the application for recall contained new evidence or arguments that could warrant revisiting the dismissal.

The court found that Rabson's application did not present any new grounds or evidence that could justify the recall of its earlier decision. The court concluded that Rabson was essentially seeking to relitigate the same point it had already considered and rejected. As such, the court dismissed the application for recall, affirming its earlier decision that Rabson had not provided sufficient grounds for reconsideration.

The final order of the court was that the application for recall was dismissed. This decision upheld the previous rulings that Rabson's application for leave to appeal was rightly dismissed, and no further action was warranted on the matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established