Legal Research
Cases
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Wayne Seymour Chapman

Malcolm Edward Rabson v Wayne Seymour Chapman

Case [2013] NZSC 69 16 July 2013

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 22/2013
[2013] NZSC 69

BETWEEN	MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON Applicant
AND	WAYNE SEYMOUR CHAPMAN Respondent

Court:	William Young and Glazebrook JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person S Barker for Respondent
Judgment:	16 July 2013

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Rabson has made an application for the recall of this Court’s judgment of 2 July 2013.[1]
[1]Rabson v Chapman [2013] NZSC 65.
There is nothing raised in the recall application that has not already been considered.
The application for recall is therefore dismissed.

Solicitors:
Buddle Finlay for the Respondent

Details

AGLC: Malcolm Edward Rabson v Wayne Seymour Chapman [2013] NZSC 69
Case: [2013] NZSC 69
Decision Date: 16 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the case of Malcolm Edward Rabson versus Wayne Seymour Chapman was brought before William Young and Glazebrook JJ. The matter involved an application for the recall of the Court’s earlier judgment. The applicant, Malcolm Edward Rabson, was representing himself, while S Barker acted as counsel for the respondent, Wayne Seymour Chapman. The Court handed down its judgment on 16 July 2013, dismissing the application for recall.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the grounds put forward in the recall application warranted a reconsideration of the Court’s prior judgment of 2 July 2013. The Court needed to determine if any new evidence or arguments had been presented that had not been previously considered. The applicant argued for a recall based on certain points, but the Court was tasked with evaluating the sufficiency and novelty of these arguments.

In dismissing the application for recall, the Court reasoned that the recall application did not introduce any new considerations or arguments that had not already been examined in the earlier judgment. The Court noted that all relevant matters had been thoroughly deliberated upon previously. Consequently, the Court concluded that there were no valid grounds for recalling the earlier decision. The applicant's attempt to revisit the judgment was deemed unsuccessful, and the original judgment was upheld.

Orders