IN THE Court of appeal OF new Zealand
	
CA441/2013
[2015] NZCA 307

BETWEEN	
COLIN BIDOIS, JENNY ROLLESTON, TAARI NICHOLAS, PATRICK NICHOLAS, CHRISTOPHER (KIRITOHA) TANGITU, RAWIRI KUKA AND SHADRACH ROLLESTON AS THE MANDATED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE HAPU OF PIRIRAKAU
Appellants	

AND	
RAPATA (ROBERT) LEEF, STEPHANIE TERIA TAIAPA, NADINE HORINA PIRAKE, KAINE RAROA TAIAPA, DARREN WILLIAM LEEF, NEIL HIRAMA AND PANIA ANEISHA BROWN AS THE MANDATED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE HAPU OF NGATI TAKA
Respondents	

Court:	
Miller, Cooper and Simon France JJ	

Counsel:	
FMR Cooke QC and M Sharp for Appellants
S P Bryers for Respondents	

Judgment:
(On the papers)	
15 July 2015 at 10.30 am	

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT TO RECALL JUDGMENT

The application for recall of this judgment is dismissed.
__________________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Simon France J)

[1]	The appellants seek recall of the judgment issued on 18 May 2015.  The focus of the application is para [53] of the judgment.
[2]	In preparation for settlement of historical claims, the various iwi of Ngāti Ranginui agreed a process for settling internal disputes.  This was called the Mana Whenua Agreement.  It was contemplated the process would be used subsequent to settlement with the Crown.  As it happens, all relevant disputes were apparently determined prior to settlement.  As the judgment records, the Mana Whenua Agreement was not therefore included amongst the final settlement documentation.
[3]	Paragraph [53] of the judgment records that the Mana Whenua Agreement is no longer available.  It is this observation the appellants seek to have recalled.  They wish in subsequent litigation to argue the Agreement is still operative.  A footnote which precedes the paragraph in issue notes that the judgment proceeds on the basis of the position as it presently stands.  It was recognised that there may be further litigation about the processes that were followed, and the observation was made that the present judgment is not intended to indicate a view on the merits of any future litigation.
[4]	We agree with the respondent that the criteria for recall as set out in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) are not met.  No special reason exists requiring recall.  The judgment is plain that it records the present situation, and the statement in para [53] was acceptance of a specific argument advanced to the Court by Mr Cooke QC on behalf of the respondent.  Recall is not the appropriate vehicle for any challenge to the statement.
[5]	The application is declined.

Solicitors: 
Holland Beckett, Tauranga for Appellants 
Martelli McKegg, Auckland for Respondents