Margot Crequer v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 69/2014
[2015] NZSC 18

BETWEEN	MARGOT CREQUER Applicant
AND	CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, William Young and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person D L Harris for Respondent
Judgment:	6 March 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks a recall of the judgment of this Court of 2 September 2014[1] dismissing her application for leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of 30 June 2014.[2] The application for leave to appeal involved interlocutory issues as to an appeal to the High Court and thus fell to be considered under s 13(4) of the Supreme Court Act 2003. At the heart of the issues which the applicant wished to raise in this Court were (a) a procedural ruling the substance of which can be reviewed at the hearing of the appeal in the High Court and (b) an order for costs made by the Court of Appeal which the respondent has undertaken not to enforce. The judgment proceeded on the basis that the s 13(4) test was not met.[3]
[1]Crequer v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development [2014] NZSC 119 [Crequer (SC)].
[2]Cre quer v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development [2014] NZCA 284 (Harrison, Stevens and Miller JJ).
[3]Crequer (SC), above n 1, at [5].
The applicant’s submissions in support of the current application, while challenging the reasoning of the Court, raise nothing that warrants a recall of the 2 September 2014 judgment.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the case of Margot Crequer against the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development was heard and decided. The applicant, Margot Crequer, sought a recall of a previous judgment from September 2, 2014, which had dismissed her application for leave to appeal against a decision from the Court of Appeal dated June 30, 2014. The original application for leave to appeal pertained to interlocutory issues concerning an appeal to the High Court, and was assessed under section 13(4) of the Supreme Court Act 2003. The primary concerns raised by Crequer were a procedural ruling and an order for costs made by the Court of Appeal, which the respondent had promised not to enforce.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the applicant's appeal met the criteria set out in section 13(4) of the Supreme Court Act 2003. The applicant argued that the earlier judgment contained errors in reasoning and should be recalled. However, the court found that Crequer's submissions did not present any new arguments that would warrant a recall of the judgment. The court reiterated that the decision to dismiss the application for leave to appeal was based on the fact that the appeal did not meet the criteria set out in section 13(4) of the Supreme Court Act 2003.

The court dismissed the application for recall, confirming that the reasoning in the earlier judgment was sound and that there were no grounds for recalling the judgment. The court noted that the applicant's concerns about the procedural ruling and the costs order could be addressed during the hearing of the appeal in the High Court. The court emphasized that the applicant's arguments did not warrant a departure from the earlier decision. Consequently, Margot Crequer's application for recall was dismissed, and the earlier judgment remained in place.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established