8 Nov 2023
The applications for recall are dismissed because the assessments underlying the bankruptcy notices are statutorily deemed correct as they were not challenged, so the appeal could not possibly succeed and there is no basis to recall the Court's prior judgment.
30 Apr 2021
Leave to appeal was refused because the application sought interlocutory relief to recall a prior judgment without any arguable error of fact or law justifying interlocutory appeal; the judicial review claim was an improper collateral attack on a conviction and subsequent success in a criminal appeal does not justify recalling valid civil procedural orders given the need for finality of litigation and the integrity of the law.
23 Jun 2017
The recall application is dismissed because leave applications must be determined by permanent judges and, given that most permanent judges were respondents, the doctrine of necessity justified their participation; the leave decision's reliance on the Court of Appeal judge's decision was determinative and the omission regarding the costs order did not warrant recall.
14 Jun 2017
The Court of Appeal held Chief Judge Colgan did not err in ordering a rehearing; the Employment Court's power to rehear is broad, the standard for rehearing encompasses a substantial possibility or real risk of miscarriage of justice, the Nurses Organisation's s179 challenge raised a distinct and broadly significant question which Judge Ford failed to decide, and the Employment Court also has a power of recall in appropriate cases.
19 Dec 2016
Plaintiffs entitled to costs as successful parties on the summary judgment; defendant's procedural defaults (late service), unauthorised filing of a notice of discontinuance and pursuit of a meritless recall justified an increase above scale but did not reach the high threshold for indemnity costs; award made on 2B scale increased by 20% plus disbursements fixed by the Registrar, including costs for the opposition memorandum to the recall application.
2 Dec 2016
Costs applications for the recall and stay were adjourned pending further order because the court could not properly assess the reasonableness and attribution of the claimed solicitor-client costs on the material provided, an appeal potentially affecting costs remains outstanding, and the trial judge's imminent retirement made it appropriate to defer determination until the appeal's resolution or other changed circumstances.
25 Feb 2016
Because the applicant filed the application for leave and did not withdraw it, the Supreme Court was required to determine it; the respondent filed submissions and was entitled to costs; therefore the prior judgment was not a nullity and the application for recall is dismissed.
19 Oct 2015
The Registrar was correct to refuse to accept further filings because the applicant repeatedly flouted and attempted to subvert a prior court order; the application for review was an abuse of process and is therefore dismissed.
15 Aug 2014
Leave was refused because the matter raised only issues specific to the facts of this case rather than matters of general or public importance, there was no risk of miscarriage of justice as the applicant could apply for recall of the Court of Appeal's decision, and the Court of Appeal was best placed to assess any costs issues arising from the abandoned or struck out appeal.
11 Feb 2014
The settlement agreement upheld by the High Court and this Court encompasses the outstanding appeals; therefore those appeals are struck out, the respondents are entitled to the claimed costs of $398 in respect of each of CA766/2012 and CA767/2012, and no basis exists to recall the Court of Appeal's 30 September 2013 judgment.