Malcolm Edward Rabson v Transparency International New Zealand Incorporated

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 85/2015
[2015] NZSC 153

BETWEEN	MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON Applicant
AND	TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED Respondent

Court:	William Young, Arnold and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person D R Kalderimis and K E Yesberg for Respondent
Judgment:	22 October 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks recall of the Court’s most recent judgment in this matter.[1] He argues the Court did not deal with delay or with the fact that the Court of Appeal did not make a decision.
[1]Rabson v Transparency International New Zealand Incorporated [2015] NZSC 145.
Both were in fact referred to at [3] of the judgment. Delay in deciding did not add anything to the principal ground of appeal, that the Court of Appeal did not make a decision on the applicant’s application for an extension of time. The Court found that the fact the Court of Appeal Judge did not decide whether to grant an extension of time did not provide a proper basis for appeal in the circumstances explained at [4] of the judgment.
No basis for recall is made out and the application is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Chapman Tripp, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this Supreme Court of New Zealand matter, Malcolm Edward Rabson is the applicant, and Transparency International New Zealand Incorporated is the respondent. The applicant is seeking recall of the Court's judgment in Rabson v Transparency International New Zealand Incorporated, which was delivered on 15 October 2015. The applicant contends that the Court failed to address the issue of delay in deciding the case and the fact that the Court of Appeal did not make a decision on his application for an extension of time.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant had demonstrated a sufficient basis for the recall of the Court's judgment. The Court was required to determine whether the applicant's arguments regarding delay and the Court of Appeal's failure to decide his application for an extension of time provided grounds for recall. The Court had to examine whether the applicant's contentions constituted an exceptional circumstance warranting the recall of the judgment.

The Court found that both the delay in deciding the case and the Court of Appeal's failure to make a decision on the applicant's extension of time application had been referred to in the judgment. However, the Court held that the delay did not add anything to the principal ground of appeal, which was the Court of Appeal's failure to make a decision on the applicant's extension of time application. The Court concluded that the fact the Court of Appeal Judge did not decide whether to grant an extension of time did not provide a proper basis for appeal in the circumstances explained in the judgment. Consequently, the Court found that no basis for recall was made out, and the application was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established