6 Mar 2023
The application to recall and to amend was declined because the number of bank accounts was not material to the Court's reasoning and there was no basis under the principles in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) to recall or amend the prior judgment; the better course is to read the original judgment together with this clarifying judgment.
1 Mar 2022
The Court exercised its discretionary power under the Rules and relevant authorities to order transcription and release of the electronic recording of the Duty Judge call on 3 February 2021 and to provide the transcript to both parties because the call was short (limited court resources required), the transcript is potentially relevant to the arbitration on credibility and admissions, and balancing timeliness concerns against relevance favoured disclosure; the order applies only to the electronic recording and not to the Judge's handwritten notes.
5 Nov 2018
The Court was satisfied the existing orders contained an accidental slip concerning which half share was re-vested and accordingly corrected the orders under r 11.10 to vest the correct half shares in the named parties.
11 Jun 2018
HCR 11.10(b) cannot be used to alter the substance of the judgment or to improve on it; the interim order as made was clear and did not require correction to effect a stay of internal disciplinary procedures, therefore the application to correct the order is dismissed.
23 Apr 2018
The court applied r 11.10 and authorities on misnomer and concluded that the spelling of the first respondent's middle name was a clerical error capable of summary correction because the respondent's own affidavit made clear he was the intended party; accordingly the sealed judgment could be corrected to substitute 'Brian Grayham Bluett' for 'Brian Graham Bluett' without injustice.
13 Apr 2016
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal raised no matter of general or public importance, there was no factual basis to establish apparent bias or predetermination by the Court of Appeal, and no substantial miscarriage of justice was shown; additionally the Court of Appeal would have declined to correct the sealed 2003 order given the long delay and that any correction would not have assisted the applicant.
2 Dec 2015
The application to correct the sealed Court of Appeal judgment is dismissed: the Court declines to exercise its discretion under r 8 because of the applicant's long delay in raising the issue, the lack of any useful purpose from making the correction given subsequent events (bankruptcy discharge and annulment under s 119(1)(b)), exhaustion of appeal rights, and because the costs order could only have been payable to the sisters personally at the time since probate had not been granted.
19 Feb 2015
The application to amend the earlier judgment under r 11.10 was refused because the proposed amendments were not accidental slips but substantive changes sought to advance the appellant's position; accordingly the respondents were entitled to indemnity costs for responding to the application.
20 Nov 2014
The application to recall and correct the judgment was dismissed because the asserted error was not material to the decision on the interlocutory applications, there was no utility in re‑examining the evidence prior to the scheduled substantive hearing, and any factual interpretation could be reconsidered by the Judge hearing the substantive applications; accordingly recall was unnecessary.
7 May 2014
The court will recall the December 20, 2013 judgment solely to correct the factual omission that the plaintiff had notified she would not attend and to correct the intituling and the basis for indemnity costs; no other grounds for recall are made out and substantive complaints must be pursued on appeal.