Slavich v Judicial Conduct Commissioner

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA626/2011
[2012] NZCA 117

BETWEEN JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH
Applicant

AND JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER
First Respondent

AND PAUL HEATH
Second Respondent

Application: 19 March 2012

Court: Glazebrook, Wild and White JJ

Counsel: Applicant in person
P Gunn for Respondents

Judgment: 28 March 2012 at 3pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: RECALL APPLICATION

The application to recall this Court’s judgment of 22 February 2012 is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Wild J)

By application dated 2 March 2012, received by this Court on 19 March, the applicant applies to this Court to recall its judgment of 22 February 2012.[1]
[1] Slavich v Judicial Conduct Commissioner [2012] NZCA 31.
That judgment dismissed the applicant’s application for an extension of time within which to appeal.
None of the situations outlined in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2)[2] justifying the serious step of a Court recalling a judgment formally delivered applies here.
[2] Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 at 633.
The recall application is a yet further attempt by the applicant to re-argue an issue effectively decided against him by the Supreme Court.
The application for recall is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an application from John Kenneth Slavich, who sought to recall the Court's judgment delivered on 22 February 2012. The application was dismissed. The original judgment had dismissed the applicant's application for an extension of time to appeal. The applicant, representing himself, sought recall on the basis that the Court had overlooked certain facts and circumstances that warranted reconsideration of the decision.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the application to recall the judgment met the criteria set out in the precedent of Horowhenua County v Nash, which outlines circumstances justifying a Court recalling a formally delivered judgment. The Court found that none of the situations outlined in Horowhenua County v Nash applied in this case. The applicant’s attempt to recall the judgment was deemed to be another opportunity to re-argue the merits of the case, which had already been effectively decided against him by the Supreme Court.

The Court held that the application did not meet the stringent criteria required for recall as set out in precedent, and dismissed the application. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the recall application was simply another attempt by the applicant to re-litigate an issue already decided against him by a higher court. The Court noted that the recall application did not provide any new facts or arguments that warranted reconsideration of the original decision. The Court’s judgment was final and binding, and the application to recall was dismissed without further consideration.

The final orders of the Court confirmed the dismissal of the recall application. The Court of Appeal reiterated that the applicant’s application did not meet the criteria for recall as established by precedent, and thus the original judgment remained in place. The Court emphasized that the recall application was an attempt to re-argue the merits of a case already decided, which the Court would not entertain.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established