P (SC 120/2019) v Commissioner of Inland Revenue

NOTE: SUPREME COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF P, W AND A.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 120/2019
[2020] NZSC 50

BETWEEN	P (SC 120/2019) Applicant
AND	COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE First Respondent
W Second Respondent
ATTORNEY-GENERAL Third Respondent

Court:	Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook and O’Regan JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person E J Norris for the First and Third Respondents
Judgment:	20 May 2020

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application to review the decision of the Deputy Registrar is dismissed.
BThe application for recall of our judgment of 18 March 2020 (P (SC 120/2019) v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2020] NZSC 22) is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

On 18 March 2020 this Court dismissed Ms P’s application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal.[1]
[1]P (SC 120/2019) v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook and O’Regan JJ); and P (CA85/2019) v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2019] NZCA 531, [2019] NZFLR 322 (Courtney, Duffy and Wylie JJ). The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a High Court decision declining Ms P’s application for judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue with regard to child support payments: [P] v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2019] NZHC 98, [2018] NZFLR 956 (Palmer J).
A further application for leave to appeal against that judgment was received by this Court on 23 March 2020. The Deputy Registrar did not accept this application for filing on the basis that the matter had already been determined.
On 27 March 2020, Ms P filed an application seeking review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision and for the rehearing of the application for leave to appeal. We treat this as an application to recall our judgment of 18 March 2020.
The general rule is that a judgment, once delivered, must stand for better or worse.[2] There are, however, three categories of cases where a judgment may be recalled: a legislative amendment or a new development in case law of “high authority”; a failure by counsel to draw attention to a relevant statutory provision or caselaw; or “where for some other very special reason justice requires that the judgment be recalled”.[3]
[2]Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633; see as cited in Craig v Williams [2019] NZSC 60 at [10].
[3]Saxmere Company Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Ltd (No 2) [2009] NZSC 122, [2010] 1 NZLR 76 at [2]; Green Growth No 2 Ltd v Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust [2018] NZSC 115 at [20]; and Craig v Williams, above n 2, at [10].
Nothing raised by Ms P provides any valid reason for the recall of our judgment in terms of those principles. She merely seeks to repeat and elaborate on arguments already made and dismissed in our judgment of 18 March 2020.
It follows that the matter has been finally determined by that judgment and that the Deputy Registrar was right not to accept the further application for leave to appeal.

Result

The application to review the decision of the Deputy Registrar is dismissed.
The application for recall of our judgment of 18 March 2020 (P (SC 120/2019) v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2020] NZSC 22) is dismissed.

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case P (SC 120/2019) v Commissioner of Inland Revenue involved a dispute between Ms P, the applicant, and the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, along with two other respondents. The applicant sought leave to appeal against a decision made by the Court of Appeal, which had dismissed an appeal against a High Court decision. The High Court had previously declined the applicant's application for judicial review of a decision regarding child support payments. The Supreme Court had earlier dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal, and now the applicant sought to review the decision of the Deputy Registrar and recall the Supreme Court's judgment.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the Supreme Court's earlier judgment, which dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal, should be recalled. The applicant argued that there were valid reasons for recalling the judgment, including alleged failures by counsel and new developments in case law. The Court was required to determine whether any of the grounds provided by the applicant justified recalling the earlier judgment.

The Supreme Court found that the applicant's arguments did not meet the criteria for recalling a judgment. The Court noted that while there are exceptional circumstances under which a judgment may be recalled, such as legislative amendments, new developments in high authority case law, or significant oversights by counsel, none of these applied to the applicant's case. The applicant's arguments were essentially a reiteration of those previously dismissed, and there was no new evidence or development that warranted reconsideration of the judgment. Consequently, the Court held that the earlier judgment stood and dismissed the application for recall.

The Supreme Court's final orders were that the application to review the Deputy Registrar's decision was dismissed, and the application for recall of the earlier judgment was also dismissed. The Court concluded that the matter had been finally determined by the previous judgment, and no grounds existed for altering or recalling that decision.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established