Re: An application by Malcolm Edward Rabson

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC MA 13/2016
[2017] NZSC 41

IN THE MATTER OF	AN APPLICATION BY MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON Applicant
Court:	Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, OʼRegan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	M E Rabson in person
Judgment:	5 April 2017

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall of judgment is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks a recall of this Court’s judgment dismissing his application for review of a decision of Arnold J by minute of 19 December 2016.[1] In that minute, Arnold J dealt with an application by Mr Rabson for recall of this Court’s judgment in Erceg v Erceg.[2] Arnold J ruled that the applicant had no standing to seek recall of the Erceg judgment. The Court dismissed the application for review for want of jurisdiction.
[1]Re an application by Rabson [2017] NZSC 19.
[2]Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZSC 135.
The application for recall raises no matter that provides any basis for reconsideration of the judgment. The statement in the judgment that the Court does not have jurisdiction means what it says.
The application for recall is therefore dismissed.
We direct the Registrar to refuse to accept for filing any further applications from the applicant in relation to this matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Malcolm Edward Rabson has applied to the Supreme Court of New Zealand for a recall of the court's judgment dismissing his application for review of a decision made by Arnold J. The initial application for review pertained to a judgment in Erceg v Erceg. Arnold J had ruled that Rabson lacked the standing to seek recall of the Erceg judgment, resulting in the Supreme Court dismissing the application for review due to a lack of jurisdiction. Rabson now seeks to recall the decision dismissing his application for review.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether there were grounds for recalling the judgment that dismissed Rabson's application for review. Specifically, the court had to determine if any new matter had arisen that would warrant reconsideration of the earlier judgment. The court also needed to assess whether the statement in the original judgment, asserting that the court lacked jurisdiction, could be reconsidered in light of Rabson's application.

In dismissing the application for recall, the Supreme Court held that no new matter had emerged that would justify reconsidering the judgment. The court underscored that the statement indicating a lack of jurisdiction was clear and conclusive. Consequently, the application for recall was dismissed. Additionally, the court directed the Registrar to refuse any further applications from Rabson regarding this matter, effectively closing the avenue for continued appeals in this context.

The final order of the court was that the application for recall of the judgment dismissing Rabson's application for review was dismissed. Furthermore, the court issued a directive to the Registrar to decline any future applications from Rabson concerning this specific matter, thereby preventing any further attempts to challenge the earlier decisions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established