Wootton v Wootton

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA600/2020
[2022] NZCA 55

BETWEEN	MARGARET ANN WOOTTON Appellant
AND	PHILLIP GARRY WOOTTON Respondent

Counsel:	Appellant in Person E J Collins for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	14 March 2022 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF BROWN J
(Recall)

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

In my judgment of 12 November 2021 I declined Ms Wootton’s application to review the Deputy Registrar’s decision declining to grant a suspension of time under r 43(1B)(a) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. I directed that the stay granted in [2020] NZCA 542[1] be set aside.[2]
[1]Wootton v Wootton [2020] NZCA 542.
[2]Wootton v Wootton [2021] NZCA 597.
Ms Wootton seeks a recall of my judgment contending that the circumstances fall within the third category in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2),[3] namely that for some very special reason justice requires that the judgment be recalled.
[3]Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC).
Although the several documents filed by Ms Wootton contain a number of criticisms of the judgment, the thrust of her complaint appears to be two-fold. First, that the review of the Registrar’s decision went beyond the material that was in front of the Registrar herself and hence the review was not a review of what the Registrar turned her mind to. Secondly, that I did not turn my mind to “the review process as being part of determining an application allowed by the Legal Services Commissioner before determining an application as finally determined for the purposes of r 43(1B)(a)” of the Rules.
As the Supreme Court recently stated in S (SC39/2017) v R,[4] the general rule is that a judgment once delivered must stand for better or worse, subject to appeal, and a decision to recall a judgment will only be made in exceptional circumstances. Recall will be appropriate where some procedural or substantive error has occurred that would result in a miscarriage of justice.
[4]S (SC39/2017) v R [2022] NZSC 7 at [3].
I do not consider that there is any such error in my judgment. It explained that the review function of a Judge is to be exercised de novo and proceeded to do so by reference to further material which Ms Wootton provided. Nor does there appear to have been any error in the conclusion that Ms Wootton’s legal aid application was no longer pending.
Ms Wootton’s application also requested that a number of corrections be made to the judgment pursuant to the slip rule. I agree with the respondent’s submission that none of the requested corrections would serve any purpose as they cannot affect the outcome of the decision.
The application for recall and the application for correction are dismissed.
There is no order for costs.

Solicitors:
Collins and May Law, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Margaret Ann Wootton, the appellant, sought a recall of a judgment by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, which declined her application to review the decision of the Deputy Registrar. The Deputy Registrar had refused to grant a suspension of time under a specific rule of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. The appeal was dismissed, and the stay previously granted was set aside. The appellant argued that the review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision went beyond the material considered by the Registrar and that the judge did not properly consider the review process as part of the application allowed by the Legal Services Commissioner.

The court was required to determine whether the judgment should be recalled due to any procedural or substantive errors that would result in a miscarriage of justice, as per the guidelines established in previous case law. The court also had to consider the appellant's request for corrections to the judgment.

The Court of Appeal found no procedural or substantive errors in the judgment. It confirmed that the review function of a judge is exercised de novo, meaning the judge reviewed the case afresh by considering additional material provided by the appellant. The court concluded that the appellant's legal aid application was no longer pending, and thus the Deputy Registrar's decision was correctly upheld. Additionally, the court rejected the appellant's request for corrections to the judgment, stating that such corrections would not affect the outcome of the decision. The application for recall and the application for correction were dismissed, and there was no order for costs.

This judgment underscores the importance of the de novo review process and the limited circumstances under which a judgment may be recalled. The court's decision highlights the stringent criteria that must be met to justify a recall, emphasizing the finality of judgments in the interests of legal certainty and finality.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established