TIMOTHY GRAEME LITTLE v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2022] NZSC 103

TIMOTHY GRAEME LITTLE v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2022] NZSC 103 [26 August 2022]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROASC 40/2022[2022] NZSC 103BETWEEN TIMOTHY GRAEME LITTLEApplicantAND NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETYRespondentCourt: O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJCounsel: Applicant in personP N Collins for RespondentJudgment: 26 August 2022JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for recall of this Court's judgment of23 June 2022 (Little v New Zealand Law Society [2022]NZSC 78) is dismissed.B There is no order as to costs.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] In a judgment delivered on 23 June 2022,1 this Court dismissed Mr Little'sapplication for leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal.2 He nowapplies for recall of this Court's decision.[2] The respondent filed a memorandum recording its opposition to the applicationfor recall while indicating it did not intend to file submissions unless directed to do so.We do not require further assistance from the respondent.1 Little v New Zealand Law Society [2022] NZSC 78 (O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ).2 Little v New Zealand Law Society [2022] NZCA 121 (Kós P, Brown and Goddard JJ).[3] Recall may be granted in the following three circumstances:3[F]irst, where since the hearing there has been an amendment to a relevantstatute or regulation or a new judicial decision of relevance and high authority;secondly, where counsel have failed to direct the Court's attention to alegislative provision or authoritative decision of plain relevance; and thirdly,where for some other very special reason justice requires that the judgment berecalled.[4] Mr Little filed 36 pages of initial submissions and then 16 pages of additionalsubmissions. He does not say which of the three circumstances he relies on. Nothingin his submissions relates to the first circumstance, so we proceed on the basis that herelies on one or both of the second and third circumstances.[5] Most arguments advanced by Mr Little merely relitigate points already raisedin his submissions and rejected by this Court in refusing leave to appeal. They do notprovide any 'very special reason' for recall.4[6] Mr Little raises two new matters which he says are of 'plain relevance':the first, an Australian authority; the second, a New Zealand legislative provision.These relate to the second of the recall pathways. The Australian authority isVictorian Building Authority v Andriotis, decided by the Australian High Court.5Mr Little says ss 5 and 45 of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997 requirethis Court to consider and apply that case.6 The New Zealand legislative provisionMr Little cites is s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Mr Little says thelower Courts denied his right to justice as guaranteed by that provision.[7] Victorian Building Authority v Andriotis relates to a separate issue which wasdecided in the context of entirely different facts. It is not an authoritative decision of'plain relevance'.3 Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633; approved in this Court inSaxmere Co Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Co Ltd (No 2) [2009] NZSC 122, [2010] 1 NZLR76 at [2]; and Uhrle v R [2020] NZSC 62, [2020] 1 NZLR 286 at [29].4 See Biddle v R [2021] NZSC 129 at [4]; and Foster v R [2021] NZSC 130 at [4].5 Victorian Building Authority v Andriotis [2019] HCA 22, (2019) 268 CLR 168.6 Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997, s 5(1) provides: "Every law of New Zealand must,unless it or this Act otherwise expressly provides, be read subject to this Act." Section 45 provides:"For the purpose of promoting consistency between decisions made by the Tribunal for thepurposes of this Act and the Australian Tribunal for the purposes of the Australian Act, the Tribunalmust have regard to decisions made by the Australian Tribunal for the purposes of the AustralianAct."[8] Section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, while relevant in a generalsense to all judicial decision making, is not engaged on these facts. The lower Courtsconsidered Mr Little's arguments and dismissed them with reasons. This Courtdeclined leave in accordance with s 74 of the Senior Courts Act 2016. Mr Little's rightto justice under s 27 cannot, on any view, be said to have been breached.[9] The application for recall is dismissed.[10] There is no order as to costs.Solicitors:New Zealand Law Society, Wellington for Respondent