VadeLab
DismissedSupreme Court of New Zealand·

Supreme Court Denies Recall Request in a Case

Case No. [2026] NZSC 86 · Justices Ellen France, Williams, Kós

📌 In brief

In this case, the Supreme Court refused an attempt by the applicant to reconsider a previous decision that denied permission to appeal. The court found there were insufficient reasons given for why they should revisit their earlier ruling.

⚖️ Legal holding

A party seeking to recall a judgment must provide very special reasons, which were not met in this case.

Topics

recallleave to appeal

📖 Technical summary

The Court dismissed an application for recall of a previous judgment dismissing applications for leave to appeal.

📜 Headnote Official document

The claimant sought recall of a previous Supreme Court judgment dismissing applications for leave to appeal, arguing delay was explained and grounds were not properly considered. The Court dismissed the application, finding no very special reasons were provided.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: [APPELLANT] v R [2026] NZSC 86 [1 July 2026]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA SC 6/2026 [2026] NZSC 86

[APPELLANT] Applicant AND [RESPONDENT] Respondent

SC 24/2026 [APPELLANT] Applicant AND [RESPONDENT] Respondent

SC 25/2026 [APPELLANT] Applicant AND [RESPONDENT] [ADDRESS]: [COUNSEL], [NAME] and [NAME] JJ Counsel: [redacted] SC 6/2026 Applicants in SC 24/2026 and SC 25/2026 in person [RESPONDENT] for Respondent Judgment: 1 July 2026

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 21 May 2026 ([APPELLANT[COMPANY] v R [2026] NZSC 59) is dismissed. ____________________________________________________________________

REASONS [1] In our judgment delivered on 21 May 2026, we dismissed the applicants’ applications for an extension of time to file applications for leave to appeal.1 The applicants now seek a recall of that judgment. [2] Recall is sought on the basis the delay in filing the applications for leave was explained. They also say the Court has not properly considered the grounds for leave advanced. They refer, amongst other matters, to evidential issues they say were relevant to their defence. [3] Nothing raised by the applicants provides very special reason for recall.2 As the respondent submits, the claim that the lengthy delay in filing the applications for leave is explained by the applicants’ involvement in other litigation has little force. This was not a matter raised in the application for an extension of time and no affidavit has been provided. In any event, the substantive matters advanced by the applicants essentially involve re-litigation of matters raised, and addressed, in the application for leave. That is not a basis for recall.3 Result [4] The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 21 May 2026 ([APPELLANT[COMPANY] v R [2026] NZSC 59) is dismissed.

Solicitors: [redacted]

1 [APPELLANT[COMPANY] v R [2026] NZSC 59 ([NAME], [NAME] and [NAME] JJ). 2 Uhrle v R [2020] NZSC 62, [2020] 1 NZLR 286. 3 Foster v R [2021] NZSC 130 at [4].

📊 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 very special or exceptional reasons for recalling the judgment.
  • All alleged errors in reports were corrected and insufficient grounds to overturn findings exist.
  • Standard legal issues raised without significant public interest do not warrant reconsideration.
  • Conditions attached to contracts must be proven by the claimant seeking payment.
  • Independent counsel's absence does not prejudice justice unless strong grounds are shown.
  • Habeas corpus is inappropriate if it seeks to re-examine conviction validity.
  • Using another person's name to file an appeal does not evade a s 166 order.
  • Exceptional circumstances are required for direct Supreme Court appeals on security for costs.
  • Fee waivers are not automatic even with genuine public interest claims.
  • No substantial miscarriage of justice or matters of general/public importance were evident.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for recall of an earlier judgment.

Who was involved?

The claimant and the respondent, with the King representing the Crown.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court found that the reasons given by the applicant were not sufficient to warrant recalling the previous decision.

Which laws or rules were applied?

No specific laws or rules were cited in this procedural decision.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The claimant argued that the delay and grounds for leave had been properly explained, but the court found these reasons insufficient.

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

Against the applicant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone seeking to recall a judgment must provide very special reasons that were not present here.

What evidence or documents mattered?

No specific evidence was mentioned as crucial to the decision.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Generally, procedural decisions such as these are difficult to appeal.

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

It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified lawyer for cases involving recall applications.

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.