LYNNE FRANCES SNOWDON v RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2022] NZSC 158
Recall was dismissed because the applicant provided no adequate explanation for the eight year delay, the newly alleged documents do not justify recall nor explain their prior unavailability, and there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant recall or direct leave given the proposed appeal raises factual issues...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] NZSC 158
- Parties
- Applicant: Lynne Frances Snowdon; Respondent: Radio New Zealand Limited
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 23 December 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Recall Application / Decision
- Outcome
- Application for recall dismissed; no order as to costs
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Recall of Judgment, New Evidence, Delay, Costs, Professional Conduct
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Lynne Frances Snowdon
Applicant
Radio New Zealand Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Recall Application / Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether newly discovered documents justify recall of a final Supreme Court judgment
- 2 Whether there is an adequate explanation for an eight year delay in seeking extension of time to apply for leave to appeal
- 3 Whether the proposed appeal raises questions of law or of fact given appeals from the Employment Court are on questions of law only
Ratio Decidendi
Recall was dismissed because the applicant provided no adequate explanation for the eight year delay, the newly alleged documents do not justify recall nor explain their prior unavailability, and there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant recall or direct leave given the proposed appeal raises factual issues rather than questions of law.
Court Disposition
Application for recall dismissed; no order as to costs
Orders
- Application for recall dismissed
- No order as to costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
LYNNE FRANCES SNOWDON v RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2022] NZSC 158 [23 December 2022]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROASC 14/2021[2022] NZSC 158BETWEEN LYNNE FRANCES SNOWDONApplicantAND RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITEDRespondentCourt: Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook and Williams JJCounsel: A J M Weir for ApplicantJudgment: 23 December 2022JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for recall of this Court's judgment of22 February 2022 (Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Ltd[2022] NZSC 9) is dismissed.B There is no order as to costs.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] Ms Snowdon applies for the recall of this Court's judgment of 22 February20221 dismissing her application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appealagainst two Employment Court decisions.21 Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Ltd [2022] NZSC 9 (Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook andWilliams JJ) [SC leave judgment].2 Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 45, [2014] ERNZ 180 (Judge Ford); and thecosts decision in Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 180 (Judge Ford). Therehad been no application filed for leave to appeal against either decision to the Court of Appeal.[2] The application for an extension of time was dismissed on the basis that noadequate reasons had been provided to justify the eight year delay in filing theapplication.3[3] In any event, this Court held that there were no exceptional circumstancesjustifying an application for leave directly to this Court and the proposed appeal raisedissues of fact when appeals from the Employment Court are on questions of law only.4Applications for a stay and for leave to adduce new evidence were also dismissed.5Recall application[4] Ms Snowdon submits she has recently retrieved new evidence from thearchives in the Parliamentary Library which, in her submission, indicate a substantialmiscarriage of justice occurred.6 This material had not been disclosed before theEmployment Court hearing as she alleges it should have been. She also seeks tochallenge the conclusions reached in this Court's judgment about her proposed appeal.In particular, she submits her grounds of appeal did relate to a question of law.[5] After the filing of her application for recall, Ms Snowdon also filed anapplication to prevent the solicitors for the respondent acting. Ms Snowdon allegesthe new evidence shows that counsel acted inappropriately in the Employment Courthearings.Our assessment[6] The general rule is that a judgment, once delivered, must stand for better orworse.7 A decision to recall a judgment will only be made in exceptionalcircumstances.83 SC leave judgment, above n 1, at [4].4 At [5]. See Employment Relations Act 2000, s 214A.5 At [6].6 These documents do not appear to have been attached to the recall application.7 Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633, as cited in Craig v Williams[2019] NZSC 60 at [10]. Exceptions to this are discussed in Saxmere Co Ltd v Wool BoardDisestablishment Co Ltd (No 2) [2009] NZSC 122, [2010] 1 NZLR 76 at [2].8 Uhrle v R [2020] NZSC 62, [2020] 1 NZLR 286 at [29].[7] Ms Snowdon's application for an extension of time to appeal was dismissedbecause there was no adequate explanation for the delay. There is still no adequateexplanation for the delay, no matter how many additional documents may be found.There is thus no basis for recall.[8] In any event, there is no explanation provided as to why the additionaldocuments Ms Snowdon now seeks to rely on were not available at the time of herprevious (out of time) application for leave to appeal to this Court (or indeed earlier).To the extent Ms Snowdon seeks to relitigate the same arguments as in her originalleave application, this too is not a basis for recall.9[9] As the application for recall must be dismissed, we do not need to deal withthe application relating to counsel for the respondents.Result[10] The application for recall is dismissed.[11] As the respondent was not required to respond to the application for recall,there is no order as to costs.9 Nuku v District Court at Auckland [2018] NZSC 39 at [2].