S v THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [2023] NZHC 371

S v THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [2023] NZHC 371

The recall application was dismissed because the applicant did not establish any of the limited grounds for recall under Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2); the applicant merely attempted to relitigate and recast arguments already determined by the earlier judgment, so recall was not justified.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] NZHC 371
Parties
Applicant: S; First Respondent: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; Second Respondent: THE AUCKLAND DISTRICT COURT
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
28 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application to Recall Judgment
Outcome
Application for recall dismissed; earlier judgment of 17 November 2022 stands; Attorney‑General entitled to costs.
Legal Topics
Committal for Trial, Recall of Judgment, Res Judicata, Doctrine of Nullity, Costs
Judicial Review Criminal Procedure Administrative Law Committal for Trial Recall of Judgment Res Judicata Doctrine of Nullity Costs

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S

Applicant

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

First Respondent

THE AUCKLAND DISTRICT COURT

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application to Recall Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court judgment should be recalled
  2. 2 Whether there has been a change in statute/regulation or a new higher authority since the hearing
  3. 3 Whether counsel failed to draw the Court's attention to a relevant legislative provision or authoritative decision

Ratio Decidendi

The recall application was dismissed because the applicant did not establish any of the limited grounds for recall under Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2); the applicant merely attempted to relitigate and recast arguments already determined by the earlier judgment, so recall was not justified.

Court Disposition

Application for recall dismissed; earlier judgment of 17 November 2022 stands; Attorney‑General entitled to costs.

Orders

  • Application for recall dismissed.
  • Attorney‑General entitled to costs; memorandum to be filed by 10 March 2023 and any response by the applicant by 24 March 2023; costs to be determined on the papers.