Maree Howard v Accident Compensation Corporation

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 5/2015
[2015] NZSC 48

BETWEEN	MAREE HOWARD Applicant
AND	ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person P A McBride for Respondent
Judgment:	28 April 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

On 11 March 2015, this Court issued a decision dismissing Mrs Howard’s application for leave to appeal against a decision of Randerson J.[1] The Judge had dismissed Mrs Howard’s application for a review of the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal in relation to security for costs.[2] Mrs Howard now applies for a recall of this Court’s decision.
[1]Howard v Accident Compensation Corporation [2015] NZSC 25.
[2]Howard v Accident Compensation Corporation [2015] NZCA 627.
The basis on which courts will recall their judgments is limited.[3] Mrs Howard has not raised anything which would justify a recall in this instance. In essence, she is simply attempting to relitigate matters, which is impermissible.
[3]See Saxmere Company Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Ltd [2009] NZSC 122, [2010] 1 NZLR 76 at [2]. See also Erwood v Maxted [2010] NZCA 93, (2010) 20 PRNZ 466 at [23].
Accordingly, we dismiss Mrs Howard’s application for recall. We make no order as to costs.

Solicitors:
McBride Davenport James, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Maree Howard, an applicant, sought to appeal against the Accident Compensation Corporation, a respondent, regarding a decision concerning security for costs. The court, composed of Elias CJ, Glazebrook, and Arnold JJ, was tasked with deciding whether to recall and review its earlier decision dismissing Mrs Howard's application for leave to appeal. The applicant had previously appealed against a decision of Randerson J, which had dismissed her application for a review of the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal in relation to security for costs.

The court's primary legal issue was to determine if the application for recall was justified under the limited circumstances that permit such actions. Mrs Howard argued that the initial dismissal was incorrect and sought to relitigate the matter. The court noted that the basis for recalling judgments is restricted, and that relitigation of previously decided matters is generally impermissible. The court referred to previous cases, including Saxmere Company Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Ltd and Erwood v Maxted, which underscored the limited grounds for recalling judgments.

The court found that Mrs Howard had not presented any new grounds or errors that warranted a recall of its earlier decision. Her application essentially sought to relitigate matters that had already been decided, which the court deemed impermissible. Consequently, the court dismissed Mrs Howard's application for recall. No order was made regarding costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established