10 Feb 2023
The Court has power to recall and reissue its judgment; it granted the recall, deleted or amended specified passages addressing Mr Brown's concerns and made limited amendments for Ms Epiha, and concluded that those amendments obviated the need for suppression orders.
16 Dec 2022
The judgment was recalled under r 11.9 because it was issued in ignorance of the appellant's notified intention to file reply submissions due to a communication breakdown, resulting in unfairness that constitutes a 'very special reason' for recall under established authorities.
19 Oct 2022
The judgment of 26 July 2022 was recalled because counsel materially failed to disclose a relevant settlement agreement and that failure constituted a very special reason under High Court Rules r 11.9 such that justice required recall, with the defendant consenting to recall.
23 Jun 2022
The misnaming in the judgment was a clerical slip properly corrected under the slip rule (High Court Rules r 11.10); however, the substantive factual finding regarding whether the second respondent could have anticipated the court reserving judgment cannot be the subject of recall and must instead be challenged on appeal.
23 Sept 2021
The recall application is allowed only to amend wording; the Environment Court's factual findings established insufficient evidence of ancestral connection by the Pascoes and by Poutama as a collective to the project area, so even if there were an error about the application of mana whenua or s 6(e) RMA it could not have been material; the earlier judgment is reissued with substituted paragraphs reflecting those factual findings.
22 Sept 2021
The application to recall the judgment was dismissed because the judgment had been sealed and the Court no longer had jurisdiction to recall or to re-open the merits; relief against a sealed judgment must be sought by appeal rather than recall in the High Court.
2 Mar 2021
The recall application was dismissed because none of Poutama's grounds met the limited Nash criteria: the contested matters were either properly before the Environment Court or not raised on appeal, the post-judgment Waitangi Tribunal report did not constitute a relevant higher judicial authority or newly admissible evidence, and no 'special reason' existed to justify recall; therefore the High Court judgment must stand subject to appeal.
18 Sept 2020
The court recalled the prior judgment under r 11.9 because a Calderbank offer under r 14.10 had not been brought to the court's attention; having considered the timing and amount of the offer the court concluded an uplift of 30% above 2B costs was justified and reissued the judgment correcting the debt figure and awarding costs of $46,450 plus disbursements of $1,770.
4 Sept 2020
The Court concluded that supervised care under the ID Care and Rehabilitation Act may amount to detention for the purposes of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; accordingly the Court recalled and reissued its earlier judgment to correct the mischaracterisation and to note that a s 31(4) direction may result in either secure detention or supervised care amounting to detention, complicating comparator identification.
3 Feb 2020
The recall application is dismissed because the applicant did not establish any r 11.9 ground (no new law or overlooked authoritative decision and no very special reason); alleged factual or legal errors are matters for appeal not recall.