LESLIE NORMAN AUSTIN v ROCHE PRODUCTS (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED [2021] NZSC 62 [16 June 2021]
The recall was allowed because the applicant had diligently pursued his remedies and, absent amendment, the lapsed stay would defeat his collateral appeal; accordingly the Court reissued its judgment to amend the stay to continue until further order while permitting respondent or ACC to apply to discharge it for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- LESLIE NORMAN AUSTIN v ROCHE PRODUCTS (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED [2021] NZSC 62 [16 June 2021]
- Parties
- Applicant: Leslie Norman Austin; Respondent: Roche Products (New Zealand) Limited; Intervener: Accident Compensation Corporation
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 22 February 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Application to Recall Judgment / Application for Recall of Stay and Reissue of Judgment Allowed to Amend Stay Orders
- Outcome
- Application to recall the Supreme Court judgment of 16 June 2021 allowed solely to amend and reissue the stay; judgment reissued with amended orders.
- Legal Topics
- Recall of Judgment, Stay of Judgment, Extension of Stay, Time Limits, Collateral Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Leslie Norman Austin
Applicant
Roche Products (New Zealand) Limited
Respondent
Accident Compensation Corporation
Intervener
Procedural Posture
Application to Recall Judgment / Application for Recall of Stay and Reissue of Judgment Allowed to Amend Stay Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court should recall its earlier judgment to extend a time-bound stay to permit collateral ACC proceedings
- 2 Whether the applicant had pursued remedies diligently such that justice required recall
- 3 Whether there is a very special reason to recall a judgment
Ratio Decidendi
The recall was allowed because the applicant had diligently pursued his remedies and, absent amendment, the lapsed stay would defeat his collateral appeal; accordingly the Court reissued its judgment to amend the stay to continue until further order while permitting respondent or ACC to apply to discharge it for lack of diligence or other grounds.
Court Disposition
Application to recall the Supreme Court judgment of 16 June 2021 allowed solely to amend and reissue the stay; judgment reissued with amended orders.
Orders
- [7] This Court's decision in Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltd is stayed until further order of this Court.
- [8] Either the respondent or ACC may apply to discharge the stay on the ground that the applicant has not continued to pursue his appeal before the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority diligently or on any other ground.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
LESLIE NORMAN AUSTIN v ROCHE PRODUCTS (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED [2022] NZSC 11 [22February 2022]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUISC 5/2020[2022] NZSC 11BETWEEN LESLIE NORMAN AUSTINApplicantAND ROCHE PRODUCTS (NEW ZEALAND)LIMITEDRespondentCourt: Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France, Williams and Arnold JJCounsel: G J Thwaite for ApplicantJ A MacGillivray for RespondentJ B Orpin-Dowell for Accident Compensation Corporation asIntervenerJudgment: 22 February 2022JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for recall of this Court's judgment of16 June 2021 (Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltd[2021] NZSC 62) is allowed only to make the changeidentified at [4] below.B The [2021] NZSC 62 judgment is reissued with this change.___________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] The applicant applies to recall our judgment of 16 June 2021,1 which stayedour earlier dismissal of his appeal.2 The stay was to allow the applicant to seek areview out of time of the Accident Compensation Corporation's decision that his injurywas covered under the Accident Compensation Act 2001. It was time bound to1 Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltd [2021] NZSC 62 [stay decision].2 Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltd [2021] NZSC 30 [substantive decision].encourage the applicant to proceed with expedition.3 The applicant did promptly applyfor review under s 135 of the Act. His application was dismissed by ACC, and anappeal to the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority has now been filed. Althoughthe applicant diligently pursued his chosen course, he neglected to obtain an extensionof the time bound stay in this Court before it lapsed. His application for recall is tobelatedly extend the stay so that his collateral appeal may be pursued before theAuthority.[2] Neither the respondent nor ACC opposes the applicant's application.[3] Where for a very special reason justice requires recall of a judgment, the Courtmay make such an order.4 Given that the applicant has pursued his remedies diligentlyand that failure to extend the stay would defeat his claim, we are satisfied that it isappropriate to recall our judgment in relation to the stay and to amend its terms.[4] We now recall our 16 June 2021 judgment and reissue it with the followingamendment to [7] and [8] of the final orders:5[7] This Court's decision in Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltdis stayed until further order of this Court.[8] Either the respondent or ACC may apply to discharge the stay on theground that the applicant has not continued to pursue his appeal beforethe Accident Compensation Appeal Authority diligently or on anyother ground.Solicitors:Tompkins Wake, Hamilton for RespondentS Cohen-Ronen, Accident Compensation Corporation, Wellington for Intervener3 The stay was to lapse at midday on 6 December 2021.4 Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633.5 Stay decision, above n 1 (footnotes omitted).