Tanya Felicity Dunstan v New Zealand Police

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 29/2023
[2023] NZSC 71

BETWEEN	TANYA FELICITY DUNSTAN Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Court:	O’Regan, Ellen France and Kós JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person S L K Shaw and M L Clarke-Parker for Respondent
Judgment:	21 June 2023

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 17 May 2023 (Dunstan v New Zealand Police [2023] NZSC 58) is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

On 17 May 2023, this Court issued a judgment dismissing an application by the applicant for leave to appeal, dismissing an application that certain judges of this Court recuse themselves from dealing with matters related to the applicant, and awarding costs against the applicant of $2,500.[1]
[1]Dunstan v New Zealand Police [2023] NZSC 58.
On 26 May 2023, the applicant filed an application for recall of the judgment and for cancellation of the costs award.
The applicant says the Court erred in concluding that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the proposed appeal. She cites s 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003, but that provision was repealed by the Senior Courts Act 2016. The equivalent provision in the Senior Courts Act is s 75. But the provision that is relevant in the present situation is, as the Court’s judgment said, s 70. There is, therefore, no error in the judgment.
None of the other matters raised by the applicant justify recall of the judgment. The application for recall is therefore dismissed.
We make no order as to costs in respect of the current application, as the respondent was not called upon to make submissions.

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tanya Felicity Dunstan against the New Zealand Police before the Supreme Court of New Zealand involved the applicant seeking recall of a previous judgment and cancellation of a costs award. The applicant had previously sought leave to appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of her application for judicial review of a decision of the Police Commissioner to exclude her from the Police Register. The Supreme Court had dismissed her application for leave to appeal, an application for certain judges to recuse themselves, and awarded costs against her. The applicant now sought recall of this judgment and cancellation of the costs award, arguing that the Court had erred in concluding it did not have jurisdiction to consider the proposed appeal.

The primary legal issue the Court had to decide was whether there was any error in the previous judgment that would warrant recall. The applicant argued that the Court erred by not recognising its jurisdiction under section 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003, which was repealed and replaced by section 75 of the Senior Courts Act 2016. However, the Court noted that section 70 of the Senior Courts Act was the relevant provision and found no error in its previous judgment. The Court also considered other matters raised by the applicant but found them insufficient to justify recall of the judgment.

The Court dismissed the application for recall and noted that no order would be made regarding costs for the current application as the respondent was not required to make submissions. The Court’s judgment clarified that the previous judgment was correctly made, and the applicant’s arguments did not establish grounds for recall or cancellation of the costs award.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established