9 Feb 2023
Because the parties reached a settlement abandoning the appeal, agreed costs should lie where they fall, and the respondent will not enforce the unsealed costs judgment, the High Court exercised its power under r 11.9 and recalled the costs judgment as there existed the special reason required to justify recall.
4 Nov 2021
The recall application was dismissed because the costs judgment had been sealed and r 11.9 precluded recall; additionally the interim legal aid did not cover the High Court leave application or the delay, so no basis existed to vary the costs order.
28 Jul 2021
The Registrar had complied with r 7(4) by providing the required documentation confirming the s 19 notice and entitlement to be registered; there was therefore no failure to draw a clearly relevant provision to the Court's attention, no jurisdictional nullity, and no basis to recall the 2019 judgment under r 11.9; recall was dismissed and the appropriate remedy for Mr Little is appeal.
14 Apr 2021
The application to recall was dismissed because the circumstances did not meet the strict categories for recall established in Horowhenua County v Nash and applied in Erwood v Maxted: there was no change in law, no omitted binding authority, and the alleged misapprehension did not amount to a 'very special reason'; the proper remedy is appeal and the original judgment stands.
12 May 2015
The application was dismissed because the omission sought to be corrected amounted to a substantive variation—adding a separate element of the foreign judgment (RMB 8,567,202.23 interest)—which r 11.10 does not permit; r 11.10 is confined to correcting clerical or accidental slips and cannot be used to issue a materially different judgment than that sealed.
4 May 2015
The court applied the Horowhenua County criteria strictly, found the applicant's grounds did not fall within any of the established categories for recall, held the alleged oversight (regarding creditor claims) amounted to matters properly addressed on appeal rather than grounds for recall, and therefore dismissed the application to recall the 6 March 2015 judgment.
19 Jan 2015
Application to recall judgment dismissed because no very special reasons were demonstrated; the High Court had addressed costs on appeal and set aside any District Court costs award, but the determination of District Court costs remains for the District Court to decide.
7 Mar 2013
The application was struck out because it was plainly unsustainable: the costs judgment was sealed and thus not subject to recall under r 11.9, prior appeals and review applications raising the same issues had been dismissed, the applicant had breached a clear judicial direction requiring leave to file further documents on matters relating to his bankruptcy, and as an undischarged bankrupt he lacked locus to continue proceedings without the Official Assignee's consent under s 101 of the Insolvency Act 2006.
8 Feb 2013
The Court had no jurisdiction to recall the sealed 25 May 2005 bankruptcy adjudication under r 11.9 High Court Rules and adjudications in bankruptcy cannot be rescinded by recall; the recall application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and, alternatively, on the merits.
12 Oct 2009
The application to recall was dismissed because the applicants failed to demonstrate any of the recognised grounds for recall (no new or amended authority, no failure to draw the court's attention to relevant law, and no very special reason), applying Horowhenua County v Nash (No. 2) and High Court Rules r 11.9.