MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON [2017] NZSC 19
The application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the applicant was not a party and had no qualifying interest, and there is no statutory right or jurisdiction to review a judge's decision on access to court records by non‑parties.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] NZSC 19
- Parties
- Applicant: Malcolm Edward Rabson; Respondent: Supreme Court of New Zealand
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 2 March 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Review of Judicial Decision / Application for Review — Dismissed
- Outcome
- application for review dismissed for want of jurisdiction
- Legal Topics
- Standing, Recall of Judgment, Access to Court Records, Statutory Jurisdiction, Procedural Dismissal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Malcolm Edward Rabson
Applicant
Supreme Court of New Zealand
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of Judicial Decision / Application for Review — Dismissed
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a non‑party without qualifying interest has standing to seek recall of a Supreme Court judgment
- 2 Whether there is a statutory right or jurisdiction to review a Judge's decision on access to court records by non‑parties
- 3 Whether the approach in Greer v Smith applies to recall applications by non‑parties
Ratio Decidendi
The application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the applicant was not a party and had no qualifying interest, and there is no statutory right or jurisdiction to review a judge's decision on access to court records by non‑parties.
Court Disposition
application for review dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Orders
- Application for review dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON [2017] NZSC 19 [2 March 2017]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDSC MA 13/2016[2017] NZSC 19IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY MALCOLMEDWARD RABSONApplicantCourt: Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, OʼRegan and EllenFrance JJCounsel: M E Rabson in personJudgment: 2 March 2017JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for review is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] This is an application for review of a decision of Arnold J by minute of 19 December 2016. In that minute, Arnold J dealt with an application by Mr Rabsonfor recall of this Court's judgment in Erceg v Erceg.1 Arnold J noted that Mr Rabson was not a party to the Erceg v Erceg litigation, nor did he have a qualifying interest in it. He ruled, therefore, that Mr Rabson had no standing to seek a recall of theCourt's judgment. He also noted that the grounds on which recall was sought weremisplaced.[2] In Greer v Smith, this Court set out the approach to be taken in relation to applications for access to Court records otherwise than by parties to the proceedings.2 It determined that applications for access to Court records otherwise1 Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZSC 135.2 Greer v Smith [2015] NZSC 196, (2015) 22 PRNZ 785.than by parties to proceedings should be directed to a Judge. It also concluded that there was no statutory right to seek a review of a decision by a Judge determining such an application and no statutory jurisdiction to review such a decision.3[3] We consider that the same approach should be applied to an application for recall of a judgment by a person who is not a party to the litigation to which the judgment relates and has no potentially qualifying interest in the proceeding. That means there is no statutory right to seek a review and no statutory jurisdiction to review in the present case .[4] We therefore dismiss the application for review for want of jurisdiction.3 At [11].