Costs application — application for rehearing — judgment recall — transfer of proceedings — District Court Rules 2014, r 11.9 — Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 — Unison Networks Limited v The Commerce Commission [2007] NZCA 49 — Faloon v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (2006) 22 NZTC 19,832. The applicant sought costs of $3,151.50 against the defendant as the defendant had been unsuccessful in its application to transfer the proceedings to a different court. The defendant, in a memorandum of response, sought to have the transfer of proceedings application reheard or alternatively transferred to the Disputes Tribunal. An application for rehearing first required a recall of the judgment, which is permissible under r 11.9 of the District Court Rules. The criteria for recall is not found in the Rules but the Supreme Court has set out three categories for recall: (a) Where since the hearing there has been an amendment to a relevant statute or regulation or a new judicial decision of relevance and higher authority; (b) Where counsel have failed to direct the court's attention to a legislative provision or authoritative decision of plain relevance; and (c) Where for some other very special reason justice requires that the judgment be recalled. The Judge noted that the category in this case would be the second category. The plaintiff submitted that cases where recall was permitted were rare, and that the decision sought be recalled was correct. The defendant did not provide any basis upon which the judgment ought to be recalled. The Judge declined to recall the judgment and ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs as sought. As to the application to transfer the proceedings to the Disputes Tribunal, the Judge noted that the matter was better-suited to the District Court and declined the application. Judgment Date: 1 October 2020.