14 Oct 2021
The application for recall is declined because the grounds advanced amount to an attempt to re-litigate matters already adjudicated and do not meet the exceptional-circumstances threshold for recall; the purported Calderbank letter is a privileged communication and inadmissible.
13 Nov 2017
The application for recall was declined because the memoranda merely reargued points already addressed by the Court and did not satisfy the Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) test for recall of judgment.
19 Sept 2014
Leave to appeal was declined because the appeal merely sought to re‑litigate matters already decided, no specific error of law was identified, the appeal had no prospect of success and did not raise a question of general importance; consequently there was no proper basis to join the Solicitor‑General.
15 May 2013
The appeal is dismissed insofar as it seeks to re-litigate claims previously considered and found not reviewable for lack of new evidence; however the specific allegation that treatment by Dr Orr in 2003 gave rise to a treatment injury had not previously been considered as a treatment injury claim and must be treated as a fresh claim for consideration by the respondent.
25 Jun 2012
The application was dismissed because section 14(2) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 bars using habeas corpus to challenge a conviction or Court of Appeal refusal of special leave, and the applicant's filing amounted to impermissible re-litigation of earlier proceedings; the applicant is lawfully detained following conviction by a competent court.