STOCKMAN v HEALTH & DISABILITY COMMISSIONER [2023] NZCA 48
The application for recall was declined because alleged errors of law or fact do not justify recall and the asserted unconscious judicial bias did not constitute the 'very special reason' necessary to recall a judgment; additionally the high threshold for leave to appeal against an interlocutory decision had not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] NZCA 48
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Gerard Stockman; Respondent: Health and Disability Commissioner
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 8 March 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Recall of Court of Appeal Judgment Following Refused Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (on the Papers) Declining Recall
- Outcome
- Application for recall declined.
- Legal Topics
- Recall of Judgment, Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Appeal, Judicial Recusal, Unconscious Bias, Self Represented Litigants
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Peter Gerard Stockman
Applicant
Health and Disability Commissioner
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Recall of Court of Appeal Judgment Following Refused Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (on the Papers) Declining Recall
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court should recall its prior judgment
- 2 Whether alleged errors of law or fact justify recall
- 3 Whether asserted unconscious judicial bias justifies recall or recusal under the 'very special reason' category in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2)
Ratio Decidendi
The application for recall was declined because alleged errors of law or fact do not justify recall and the asserted unconscious judicial bias did not constitute the 'very special reason' necessary to recall a judgment; additionally the high threshold for leave to appeal against an interlocutory decision had not been met.
Court Disposition
Application for recall declined.
Orders
- Application for recall declined.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
STOCKMAN v HEALTH & DISABILITY COMMISSIONER [2023] NZCA 48 [8 March 2023]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA86/2022[2023] NZCA 48BETWEEN PETER GERARD STOCKMANApplicantAND HEALTH AND DISABILITYCOMMISSIONERRespondentCourt: French and Gilbert JJCounsel: Applicant in personM S Smith for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)8 March 2023 at 2 pmJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for recall is declined.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Gilbert J)[1] For reasons given in a judgment delivered on 27 October 2022, this Courtdeclined Mr Stockman's application for leave to appeal against an interlocutorydecision of the High Court declining his application for leave to subpoena threewitnesses to give evidence at the substantive hearing of his claims against the Healthand Disability Commissioner.1 Leave to appeal had been declined by the High Court.This Court also declined leave because it concluded that the high threshold required1 Stockman v Health and Disability Commissioner [2022] NZCA 511 [Court of Appeal leavejudgment].for leave to appeal against an interlocutory decision had not been met.2 Mr Stockmanis dissatisfied with this outcome and he now applies for recall of the judgment.[2] The application for recall is based on Mr Stockman's contention that thejudgment was not founded in law and fact and it was likely infected by unconsciousjudicial bias against self-represented litigants generally and "innocent male victims offemale perpetrated domestic violence" in particular. Mr Stockman says unconsciousbiases appear to be widespread within New Zealand's judiciary. He argues that thisconstitutes a very special reason justifying recall of the judgment in terms of the thirdgeneral category in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2).3[3] Alleged errors of law or fact in a judgment do not justify recall. The judgmentmust speak for itself and stand for better or worse.[4] The Court cannot yield to the unconscious bias submission. It would requirejudges to recuse themselves, based on something they are not conscious of, fromdealing with any case involving self-represented litigants, and probably many othercases as well. There would be no way of resisting recusal if the mere possibility ofsome unconscious bias was sufficient to require it. This is not what is contemplatedby the third "very special reason" category where the exceptional step of recall couldbe justified.Result[5] The application for recall is declined.Solicitors:Office of the Health & Disability Commissioner | Te Toihau Hauora, Hauātanga, Wellington forRespondent2 At [14].3 Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633.