Rabson v Attorney-General

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 92/2017
[2017] NZSC 166

BETWEEN	MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON Applicant
AND	ATTORNEY-GENERAL Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, OʼRegan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person H M Carrad for Respondent
Judgment:	6 November 2017

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall of this Court’s judgment in Rabson v Attorney‑General [2017] NZSC 149 is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant has applied for a recall of this Court’s judgment in Rabson v Attorney‑General (the leave judgment).[1]
[1]Rabson v Attorney-General [2017] NZSC 149.
The application discloses no basis for recall. In the leave judgment, the Court observed that the application for leave was an abuse of process.[2] The present application continues that abuse of process.
[2]At [3].
We therefore dismiss the application. We direct the Registrar to reject any further application for recall of the leave judgment. Copies of this judgment and the leave judgment are to be provided to the Solicitor‑General.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was asked to consider an application for recall of its earlier judgment in the case of Rabson v Attorney-General. The applicant, Malcolm Edward Rabson, sought to challenge the earlier decision of the Court, which had dismissed his application for leave to appeal. The Attorney-General was the respondent in the case, and was represented by counsel from the Crown Law Office.

The legal issue before the Court was whether there were grounds for recalling the earlier judgment. The Court had to determine whether the application for recall disclosed any basis for reconsideration of its decision. Specifically, the Court had to examine whether the application for recall continued the abuse of process that was evident in the initial application for leave to appeal.

In dismissing the application for recall, the Court held that there were no grounds for reconsideration of its earlier decision. The Court observed that the application for recall continued the abuse of process that had been evident in the initial application for leave to appeal. The Court noted that the earlier judgment had already addressed the issue of whether the applicant had disclosed any basis for appeal, and had found that there was none. The Court held that the application for recall did not disclose any new grounds for appeal, and therefore there were no grounds for recall.

The Court directed the Registrar to reject any further applications for recall of the earlier judgment, and ordered that copies of the judgment and the earlier leave judgment be provided to the Solicitor-General. This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that applications for recall are not an abuse of process, and that they disclose new grounds for reconsideration of the earlier decision.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established