MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON v JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER [2017] NZSC 100 [29 June 2017]

MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON v JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER [2017] NZSC 100 [29 June 2017]

The repeat application for recall was an abuse of process and the application for review under s 28(2) was either unavailable in the circumstances or an abuse/moot because the Registrar's initial intituling error had been corrected by judicial direction and the applicant obtained the outcome sought; both applications are dismissed and the Registrar is directed not to accept further filings in the matter.

Citation
[2017] NZSC 100
Parties
Applicant: Malcolm Edward Rabson; First Respondent: Judicial Conduct Commissioner; Second Respondents: Elias, Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
29 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Recall and Application for Review Under S 28(2) of the Supreme Court Act 2003 / Decision on Applications (dismissal)
Outcome
Application for recall dismissed; application for review dismissed; Registrar directed not to accept further applications in relation to this matter.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Recall of Decision, Court Document Intituling, Judicial Review Procedure
Civil Procedure Judicial Discipline Administrative Law Appeal Abuse of Process Recall of Decision Court Document Intituling Judicial Review Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malcolm Edward Rabson

Applicant

Judicial Conduct Commissioner

First Respondent

Elias, Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan

Second Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application for Recall and Application for Review Under S 28(2) of the Supreme Court Act 2003 / Decision on Applications (dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the repeat application for recall was an abuse of process and should be dismissed
  2. 2 Whether the application for review under s 28(2) was available and, if so, whether it should be dismissed as an abuse or inconsequential
  3. 3 Whether the Registrar should be directed not to accept further filings in the matter

Ratio Decidendi

The repeat application for recall was an abuse of process and the application for review under s 28(2) was either unavailable in the circumstances or an abuse/moot because the Registrar's initial intituling error had been corrected by judicial direction and the applicant obtained the outcome sought; both applications are dismissed and the Registrar is directed not to accept further filings in the matter.

Court Disposition

Application for recall dismissed; application for review dismissed; Registrar directed not to accept further applications in relation to this matter.

Orders

  • The application for recall is dismissed.
  • The application for review is dismissed.