Pauline Harrison and Angela Harrison v Auckland District Health Board

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH RESPONDENTS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 23/2013
[2013] NZSC 150

BETWEEN

PAULINE JANICE HARRISON
First Applicant

ANGELA JANICE HARRISON
Second Applicant

AND

AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD
First Respondent

F
Second Respondent

G
Third Respondent

H
Fourth Respondent

HEALTH AND DISABILITY COMMISSIONER
Fifth Respondent

CORONIAL SERVICES UNIT
Sixth Respondent

Court:	McGrath, William Young and Glazebrook JJ
Counsel:	Applicants (in Person)
Judgment:	18 December 2013

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicants apply to recall the judgment in Harrison v Auckland District Health Board.[1] They have filed submissions that challenge the merits of the High Court judgment and go into detail about matters relating to the treatment of the late Mr Harrison.
[1][2013] NZSC 98.
The application does not however raise any matter that would justify recall of this Court’s judgment.
The application for recall is accordingly dismissed.

Solicitors:
McElroys, Auckland for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Pauline Janice Harrison and Angela Janice Harrison sought to challenge the judgment of the High Court in their case against the Auckland District Health Board and others. The applicants were contesting the earlier decision which ruled in favour of the respondents on various counts, including the handling of the late Mr Harrison’s treatment. The applicants sought to recall the judgment based on perceived errors in the High Court’s decision and the specifics of Mr Harrison’s treatment. The legal issues before the Court involved determining whether the grounds provided by the applicants warranted a recall of the judgment, specifically if the Court's earlier decision contained any significant errors that would justify such a recall.

The Supreme Court considered the submissions made by the applicants and found that the application for recall did not present any grounds that would justify overturning the earlier judgment. The Court concluded that the issues raised by the applicants did not reach the threshold necessary to merit a recall. The Court was satisfied that the earlier judgment was correctly made based on the evidence and arguments presented. Therefore, the application for recall was dismissed as it did not meet the criteria for reconsideration.

In dismissing the application for recall, the Court confirmed that no significant errors were identified in the earlier judgment that would warrant a change in the Court’s decision. The applicants’ detailed arguments regarding the treatment of Mr Harrison were considered, but they did not provide sufficient grounds to alter the outcome of the High Court's ruling. Consequently, the Court upheld the earlier judgment, leaving the applicants’ appeal unsuccessful. This decision affirmed the correctness of the initial judgment and maintained the ruling in favour of the respondents.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established