VadeLab
DismissedSupreme Court of New Zealand·

Supreme Court Denies Recall Application

Case No. [2026] NZSC 63 · Justices Ellen France, Kós, Miller

📌 In brief

In a recent case before the Supreme Court of New Zealand, an individual attempted to have previous judgments reconsidered. The court ruled against this request, stating that there were no compelling reasons to justify recalling these decisions.

⚖️ Legal holding

A party seeking to recall a judgment must demonstrate exceptional reasons why justice requires the judgment be recalled, which was not met in this case.

Topics

recalljudicial review

📖 Technical summary

The Court dismissed an application for recall of previous judgments.

📜 Headnote Official document

The claimant sought to recall previous judgments of the Supreme Court. The Court dismissed this application, finding that none of the matters raised fell within the narrow gateway for recall and did not demonstrate exceptional reasons why justice required the judgment be recalled.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: [RESPONDENT] v [RESPONDENT]) [COMPANY] [2026] NZSC 63 [26 May 2026]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF [RESPONDENT] I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA SC 175/2025 SC 2/2026 [2026] NZSC 63

[RESPONDENT] [NAME] [RESPONDENT] AND [RESPONDENT] Respondent

SC 176/2025 SC 1/2026

[RESPONDENT] [NAME] [RESPONDENT] AND [RESPONDENT] [ADDRESS]: [COUNSEL] and [NAME] Counsel: [redacted] [NAME] for Respondent in SC 175/2025 and SC 2/2026 No appearance for Respondent in SC 176/2025 and SC 1/2026 Judgment: 26 May 2026

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for recall of this Court’s judgments of 1 May 2026 ([RESPONDENT] v [RESPONDENT]) [COMPANY] [2026] NZSC 40) and 8 May 2026 ([RESPONDENT] v [RESPONDENT] ([RESPONDENT]) [COMPANY] [2026] NZSC 54) is dismissed.

B The [RESPONDENT] must pay the respondent in SC 175/2025 and SC 2/2026 costs of $1,200.

C The Registrar is directed not to accept for filing any further applications for recall in this proceeding. ____________________________________________________________________

REASONS [1] [ADDRESS] declined leave to appeal,1 and later dismissed an application for recall of that judgment.2 Ms [RESPONDENT] now seeks recall of both judgments. [2] None of the matters now raised fall within the scope of the narrow gateway for recall prescribed by the authorities.3 A recall application is not the place to rehash arguments previously made and rejected or to make other arguments not previously before the Court at all. None of the matters raised suggest the existence of exceptional reasons why justice requires the judgment be recalled. [3] The further application for recall will therefore be dismissed, with costs to [RESPONDENT]) [COMPANY], it having filed submissions in response.

1 [RESPONDENT] v [RESPONDENT]) [RESPONDENT] [2026] NZSC 40 ([RESPONDENT], [NAME] and [NAME]). 2 [RESPONDENT] v [RESPONDENT]) [RESPONDENT] [2026] NZSC 54 ([RESPONDENT] and [NAME]). 3 [NAME] v [NAME] (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633, approved in [COMPANY] v [NAME] [COMPANY] (No 2) [2009] NZSC 122, [2010] 1 NZLR 76 at [2].

Result [4] The application for recall of this Court’s judgments of 1 May 2026 ([RESPONDENT] v [RESPONDENT]) [COMPANY] [2026] NZSC 40) and 8 May 2026 ([RESPONDENT] v [RESPONDENT]) [COMPANY] [2026] NZSC 54) is dismissed. [5] The [RESPONDENT] must pay the respondent in SC 175/2025 and SC 2/2026 costs of $1,200. [6] The Registrar is directed not to accept for filing any further applications for recall in this proceeding.

Solicitors: [redacted]

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

Dismissed12 cases

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The party did not provide exceptional reasons for recalling the judgment.
  • All alleged errors in relevant documents were corrected and insufficient grounds to overturn findings existed.
  • Standard legal issues or arguments without special significance led to dismissal.
  • No evidence of exceptional circumstances justifying direct appeal to a higher court was shown.
  • Arguments significantly reframed from previous stages or deviating from initial claims resulted in dismissal.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The court dismissed the claimant's application for recall of previous judgments.

Who was involved?

A claimant and a respondent, with no other parties mentioned.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court ruled that the matters raised did not meet the criteria for recalling a judgment.

Which laws or rules were applied?

No specific laws or rules were cited in this decision.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The claimant's failure to demonstrate exceptional reasons why justice required recall of the judgments.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

Against the claimant, as their application was dismissed.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone seeking to recall a judgment must show exceptional reasons why justice requires it.

What evidence or documents mattered?

No specific evidence or documents were mentioned as critical to the decision.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Generally, decisions on applications for recall are final and cannot be appealed.

Is it worth getting a lawyer for a case like this?

It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified lawyer for such matters.

Official source: Supreme Court of New Zealand — headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Supreme Court of New Zealand and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.