Dunstan v Riddell

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 29/2022
[2022] NZSC 67

BETWEEN	TANYA FELICITY DUNSTAN Applicant
AND	CHRISTINA MARGARET RIDDELL Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	26 May 2022

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 17 May 2022 (Dunstan v Riddell [2022] NZSC 61) is dismissed.

BThe Registrar is directed not to accept for filing any further applications in relation to this matter.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks recall of our judgment of 17 May 2022 dismissing her application for leave to appeal[1] from a decision of the Court of Appeal.[2] The Court of Appeal dismissed an application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision.
[1]Dunstan v Riddell [2022] NZSC 61.
[2]Dunstan v Riddell [2022] NZCA 88 (Brown J).
The application for recall is in substance primarily an attempt to re‑argue the application for leave. Nothing has been advanced which would warrant a recall of our decision not to grant leave.
The application for recall is accordingly dismissed.
The Registrar is directed not to accept for filing any further applications in relation to this matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Dunstan v Riddell, Tanya Felicity Dunstan, the applicant, sought recall of the Supreme Court’s judgment dismissing her application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal. Christina Margaret Riddell, the respondent, was the party against whom the recall application was made. The nature of the dispute was rooted in the applicant's dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court's earlier decision that denied her leave to appeal, and she sought to re-argue the matter.

The legal issues the court was required to decide involved whether there were sufficient grounds to recall the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment and whether any new evidence or arguments had emerged that warranted reconsideration of the decision. The court needed to assess if the recall application was more than a reiteration of the previous arguments that had already been rejected.

The Supreme Court found that the applicant had not provided any new grounds or evidence that would justify recalling the earlier judgment. The recall application was essentially an attempt to re-argue the original application for leave to appeal, which had already been dismissed. The court held that the applicant had not advanced any new or compelling reasons that would warrant a recall of the decision. Consequently, the application for recall was dismissed, and the Registrar was directed not to accept any further applications in relation to this matter.

The final orders of the court were that the application for recall of the Supreme Court’s judgment was dismissed and that the Registrar was instructed not to accept any further applications in relation to this matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established