Ruling sees no exceptional circumstances warranting a recall
The New Zealand Supreme Court has dismissed an application to recall a 4 June 2026 judgment in which its majority partly allowed the appeal of the Whangarei District Council upon finding no exceptional circumstances to do so.
In Daisley v Whangarei District Council [2026] NZSC 116, the applicant applied to recall the 4 June 2026 judgment on the ground that the reasons of the Supreme Court’s minority were right, while the majority’s reasons were wrong
The applicant alleged that the Supreme Court:
The applicant asserted that the evidence suggested that the council’s officers recklessly issued abatement notices, which would be relevant to the dismissed cross-appeal regarding misfeasance in a public office.
The applicant applied for a stay until the determination of his recall application.
The Supreme Court refused to recall its 4 June 2026 judgment. The court ruled that the applicant’s arguments repackaged or enlarged on arguments that the court had previously rejected as untenable.
In the circumstances, the court found it unnecessary to consider the applicant’s stay application.
The Supreme Court saw no exceptional circumstance warranting a recall on any of the three categories provided by Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC), approved in Saxmere Co Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Co Ltd (No 2) [2009] NZSC 122.
The court acknowledged that the third category in Horowhenua County – “where for some other very special reason justice requires that the judgment be recalled” – could potentially apply.
However, the court did not consider the alleged reasoning error so clear and material that everybody concerned, if acting reasonably, would recognise its existence.
The court explained that its majority very carefully considered but ultimately rejected the arguments for the applicant. The court added that a single member’s differing view would not justify recall.
The Supreme Court did not order costs despite the respondent council’s request for costs. The court pointed out that the applicant did not know about the rule in Horowhenua County.
However, the court did not rule on issuing costs orders on future recall applications.
Here are some other recent decisions by the Supreme Court of New Zealand.
Regardless of the misconduct and unsatisfactory conduct findings against his former solicitor, the Supreme Court issued a 17 August 2026 decision dismissing a man’s second recall application arising from the High Court of New Zealand’s bankruptcy order against him in August 2018.
In proceedings arising from an incident involving a driver stopped close to a police alcohol checkpoint, the Supreme Court made a 13 August 2026 decision affirming the findings that the officer breached s 22 but not ss 23(1)(b) and (5) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
In upholding a refusal to extend the time for an applicant to file leave applications in a family matter, the Supreme Court issued a 14 August 2026 decision acknowledging his legal training and “familiarity with civil procedure,” as seen in his applications before the High Court and the Court of Appeal of New Zealand.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation and dispute resolution news on the main page!
