Legal Research
Cases
Nuku v District Court at Auckland

Nuku v District Court at Auckland

Case [2018] NZSC 39 3 May 2018

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 117/2017
[2018] NZSC 39

BETWEEN	KARL TEANGIOTAU NUKU Applicant
AND	DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND First Respondent ATTORNEY-GENERAL Second Respondent

Court:	William Young, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person D L Harris for First Respondent I R Murray for Second Respondent
Judgment:	3 May 2018

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The recall application is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks a recall of our judgment of 8 February 2018,[1] dismissing his application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal.[2] In doing so he contends that the reliance by Venning J in the High Court[3] on dicta in Nicholls v Registrar of the Court of Appeal[4] was erroneous given the approach the Privy Council took to that case in R v Taito.[5] As well, he adopts and re-advances the submissions he made in support of his original application and takes issue with aspects of the reasons provided in our February 2018 judgment.
[1]Nuku v District Court at Auckland [2018] NZSC 7.
[2]Nuku v The District Court at Auckland [2017] NZCA 471 (Cooper, Brown and Clifford JJ).
[3]Nuku v The District Court at Auckland [2016] NZHC 2237.
[4]Nicholls v Registrar of the Court of Appeal [1998] 2 NZLR 385 (CA).
[5]R v Taito [2002] UKPC 15, [2003] 3 NZLR 577.
Nothing has been advanced which warrants recall. We consider that the particular remarks in Nicholls which were relied on by Venning J were not subject to adverse comment in Taito. More importantly, as the judgment of 8 February 2018 noted, the basis upon which the High Court and Court of Appeal approached the applicant’s judicial review proceedings was as favourable to the applicant as could have been plausibly contended for. As well, we do not see the recall jurisdiction as engaged by what in substance is no more than an attempt to relitigate the reasons provided and the conclusion reached in the judgment of 8 February 2018.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for First and Second Respondents

Details

AGLC: Nuku v District Court at Auckland [2018] NZSC 39
Case: [2018] NZSC 39
Decision Date: 3 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand presided over the case of Nuku v District Court at Auckland, where Karl Teangiotau Nuku, the applicant, sought a recall of the court's earlier judgment dismissing his application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal. The application contended that the High Court's reliance on certain dicta was erroneous and challenged aspects of the earlier judgment. The applicant was unrepresented, while the District Court at Auckland and the Attorney-General were represented by counsel.

The central legal issue was whether the reliance by Venning J on the dicta in Nicholls v Registrar of the Court of Appeal was correct, particularly given the Privy Council's approach in R v Taito. Additionally, the applicant sought to challenge the reasoning and conclusions of the earlier judgment, arguing that the High Court and Court of Appeal did not adequately address his claims. The applicant's arguments were based on the proposition that the reliance on the dicta was flawed and that the dismissal of his application for leave to appeal was unjust.

The Supreme Court dismissed the recall application, finding that there was no basis for recalling the earlier judgment. The court noted that the dicta in Nicholls had not been subject to adverse comment in Taito and that the High Court and Court of Appeal had approached the applicant's judicial review proceedings as favourably as possible. The court concluded that the recall jurisdiction was not engaged by the applicant's attempt to relitigate the reasons and conclusions of the earlier judgment. The court did not see any error in the earlier judgment's reasoning or conclusion.

The final orders of the court were that the recall application was dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the earlier judgment, holding that the reliance on the dicta in Nicholls was not erroneous and that the dismissal of the applicant's appeal leave application was justified. The court emphasized that the recall jurisdiction was not intended to allow for a rehearing of the case on its merits.

Orders