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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 52/2015
[2015] NZSC 122

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] In that decision the Court dismissed 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 112.
[2]Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court [2015] NZCA 186.
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

The applicant, Malcolm Edward Rabson, sought to recall a decision made by the Supreme Court of New Zealand. Rabson had previously applied for leave to appeal against a decision by Randerson J, which upheld a ruling by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal. The Registrar had refused to waive the requirement for security for costs. Rabson's application for recall was dismissed by the Court. The appeal for leave to appeal had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court in an earlier decision.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether there were sufficient grounds to recall the earlier decision dismissing Rabson's application for leave to appeal. The Court was required to determine whether Rabson's application for recall provided any new or compelling reasons that warranted a reconsideration of the earlier judgment.

The Court found that Rabson's application for recall did not provide any new grounds or arguments that would justify recalling the earlier decision. The Court noted that Rabson was essentially seeking to relitigate the same issues that were already considered and dismissed in the previous judgment. The Court held that there were no valid reasons for recalling the earlier decision. Consequently, the application for recall was dismissed.

The Court's decision was final, and no further recall of the earlier judgment was permitted. The orders of the Court were that the application for recall was dismissed, and Rabson's appeal for leave to appeal remained denied.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established