Malcolm Edward Rabson v Transparency International New Zealand Incorporated

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 129/2015
[2016] NZSC 22

BETWEEN	MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON Applicant
AND	TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED Respondent

Court:	William Young, Arnold and OʼRegan JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person D R Kalderimis and K E Yesberg for Respondent
Judgment:	15 March 2016

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The recall application is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks a recall of our judgment of 16 February 2016 dismissing his application for leave to appeal against a judgment striking out his appeal and ordering him to pay costs.
There is nothing in the submissions he has made in support of his application to warrant recall. The application is accordingly dismissed.

Solicitors:
Chapman Tripp, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Malcolm Edward Rabson against Transparency International New Zealand Incorporated was brought before the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The applicant, Mr Rabson, sought a recall of the court’s judgment dated 16 February 2016, which had dismissed his application for leave to appeal against a previous judgment that had struck out his appeal and ordered him to pay costs. The respondent, Transparency International New Zealand Incorporated, was represented by counsel during the proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant’s recall application warranted reconsideration of the earlier judgment. The court needed to assess if the grounds presented by Mr Rabson in support of his recall application were sufficient to warrant a review of the earlier decision. This involved examining the merits and validity of the arguments put forward by the applicant to determine if they provided a compelling reason for the court to revisit its earlier ruling.

In evaluating the application, the court found that there were no new or compelling arguments presented by Mr Rabson that would justify a recall of the earlier judgment. The submissions made in support of the recall application were deemed insufficient to warrant reconsideration. Consequently, the court dismissed the recall application, affirming the earlier decision that denied Mr Rabson’s application for leave to appeal and upheld the order for him to pay costs. The court’s reasoning was based on the lack of substantive merit in the arguments presented by the applicant, which did not provide a valid basis for altering the earlier judgment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established