22 Mar 2023
The recall application is dismissed because the proffered evidence is not fresh, the matters were fully considered and rejected in the original appeal and on leave to the Supreme Court, and recalling the judgment would amount to inappropriate relitigation absent a probable substantial injustice.
4 Oct 2022
The amended statement of claim failed to comply with High Court Rules r 5.17(1) and sought impermissible, wide-ranging relitigation of matters already dealt with by specialist courts; the without-notice injunction application lacked required grounds and procedural compliance; proceeding therefore constituted an abuse of process and was properly struck out.
25 Aug 2022
The application for recall is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required to recall a delivered judgment under Saxmere and was impermissibly attempting to relitigate issues already decided; the alleged omission of authorities did not justify recall as those cases had been referred in earlier submissions.
14 Jul 2022
Despite the need to consider the child's best interests, the appellant's repeated relitigation and lack of evidence of inability to pay justified a costs award; the appropriate amount is limited to the sum paid under the appellant's legal aid grant, $8,360.11, awarded to the third respondent.
14 Jun 2022
The recall application was dismissed because it sought to relitigate the merits of the prior decision, constituting an abuse of the Court's recall jurisdiction and presenting no issue warranting the Court's attention.
29 Apr 2022
The amended statement of claim was struck out because it constituted an abuse of process by impermissibly seeking to relitigate issues and the correctness of the 2018 Family Court and subsequent High Court determinations; the pleading failed to disclose a reasonably arguable tort cause of action against the Judge (barred by judicial immunity) and failed to plead the necessary malice or ulterior motive against OT for an abuse of process tort, and privilege would protect alleged defamatory statements; accordingly strike out was appropriate and costs awarded to the second defendant.
15 Feb 2022
The presumption in r 15.23 applies and no circumstances were shown to displace it; the third defendant's conduct in attempting to re-litigate issues already determined justified awarding costs to the plaintiff on a 2B basis in the sum claimed, with disbursements, totaling $8,714.00.
5 Jun 2020
Because the appellant failed to provide the required security for costs and the appeal had no realistic prospect of success in light of prior determinations and repeated unsuccessful attempts to relitigate the underlying judgment, the Court granted the strike-out application under r 37(1).
21 May 2019
The recall application was declined because the applicant sought to relitigate historical family‑court decisions without any new statutory provision, authoritative decision, or demonstrable counsel failure or very special reason; the delay and settled circumstances mean no substantial miscarriage of justice or procedural error justifying recall had been shown and a fresh Family Court application remained available if circumstances changed.
13 Aug 2018
The proceedings were struck out because they constituted a plainly abusive attempt to relitigate prior judicial decisions, were repetitive and vexatious, and fell outside the Commissioner’s jurisdiction; under High Court Rules r 5.35B a judge may strike out such proceedings and that remedy was appropriate here.