New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Finality of judgments

Legal area

Court

8 Sept 2022

H v THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2022] NZCA 424

Citation

[2022] NZCA 424
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for recall of the sealed Court of Appeal judgment was declined because the high threshold for reopening a perfected judgment was not met: no exceptional circumstances or miscarriage of justice were shown; the Supreme Court's interpretation and costs remarks did not obligate this Court to recall its sealed order; statutory powers relied on by the applicant did not empower the Supreme Court to direct recall of a sealed lower court judgment; finality and established recall principles therefore required refusal of the application.
23 Jun 2022

HEBEI HUANENG INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v SHI [2022] NZHC 1484

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1484
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant had established multiple reasonably arguable defences (questioning the independence/impartiality of the PRC judicial process and whether the judgment was final and conclusive) that could not be resolved on summary judgment; the appellant failed to identify an error that would be dispositive given remaining factual disputes (including PRC law), and the delay and prejudice of an interlocutory appeal outweighed any benefit given the high threshold for leave.
28 Jul 2021

HOUGHTON v SAUNDERS & ORS [2021] NZSC 92 [28 July 2021]

Citation

[2021] NZSC 92
Court

Supreme Court

There was no basis to recall the recall judgment; the Court refused to revisit or edit the impugned sentence, referred the applicant to respondents' earlier submissions and authorities, and dismissed the recall application without a costs order.
3 May 2021

ENRIGHT v NEWTON [2021] NZCA 157

Citation

[2021] NZCA 157
Court

Court of Appeal

The court held r 8 applied because the failure to seek an explicit order quashing the High Court costs order was an accidental omission by counsel and correction under r 8 is intended to prevent unnecessary hardship; accordingly the Court corrected its judgment to set aside the High Court costs order against Terrence Enright and remitted the issue of costs to the High Court for reassessment in light of the Court of Appeal's substantive decision.
11 Feb 2021

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND [2021] NZSC 3

Citation

[2021] NZSC 3
Court

Supreme Court

The application for recall is dismissed because the applicant did not establish any of the recognised grounds for recall and did not demonstrate a 'very special reason' that would justify recalling the Court's judgment.
31 Aug 2020

DAVID SIMON BARTON v R [2020] NZSC 87

Citation

[2020] NZSC 87
Court

Supreme Court

The recall application was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish any of the limited grounds permitting recall: there was no legislative amendment or new controlling case law, no failure by counsel to draw attention to relevant law, and no other very special reason; many issues had been considered and could have been raised earlier.
27 Aug 2020

CREATIVE DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS v CHORUS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2020] NZHC 2180

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2180
Court

High Court

The application to set aside the statutory demand is dismissed because Creative failed to demonstrate an arguable substantial dispute: the parties had opportunities to settle the costs and disbursements and Creative's solicitors expressly agreed the figures reflected in the sealed judgment; additionally the statutory demand included an unchallenged costs component, and any procedural flaw would not have produced a different outcome or shown prejudice warranting relief.
19 May 2020

FALOON v THE PLANNING TRIBUNAL AT WELLINGTON [2020] NZCA 170

Citation

[2020] NZCA 170
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because the proceeding was a clear abuse of process: it attempted to relitigate matters already finally determined, advanced legally untenable and procedurally deficient claims, lacked standing on key issues, and justified a limited restraint order under s 166 to prevent further serial litigation.
9 Oct 2019

ALLAN JACK WEST v GEOFFREY ALLAN WEST [2019] NZSC 109

Citation

[2019] NZSC 109
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the High Court was functus officio in relation to post-judgment discovery once an appeal was filed, the discovery applications were misconceived and the issues raised were fact-specific or attacks on the earlier High Court judgment that did not meet the statutory thresholds for leave (no general/public importance and no appearance of miscarriage of justice).
15 Jul 2019

LYON v R, BOYES-WARREN v R, UHRLE v R [2019] NZCA 311

Citation

[2019] 3 NZLR 421
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court will decline to recall a final Court of Appeal judgment except in narrow circumstances: only where (1) there is a fundamental error in procedure (including nullity), (2) a substantial miscarriage of justice would result if uncorrected, and (3) no alternative effective remedy exists; second appeals to this Court are not permitted by statute and applicants must seek leave to the Supreme Court or the prerogative of mercy. The applications before the Court did not meet these preconditions and were declined.