FALOON V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC TAU CIV-2009-470-0319
The application to recall was dismissed because the applicants failed to demonstrate any of the recognised grounds for recall (no new or amended authority, no failure to draw the court's attention to relevant law, and no very special reason), applying Horowhenua County v Nash (No. 2) and High Court Rules r 11.9.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-4d8c05d1_2796_46d9_9fa2_aab5f7765104.pdf
- Parties
- Applicant: Clarence John Faloon; Applicant: Ruth Enid Faloon; Respondent: Commissioner of Inland Revenue
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 12 October 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Application to Recall Judgment Under High Court Rules R 11.9 / Determined on the Papers; Judgment Delivered
- Outcome
- Application to recall dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Recall of Judgment, High Court Rules R 11.9, Application Dismissed
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Clarence John Faloon
Applicant
Ruth Enid Faloon
Applicant
Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application to Recall Judgment Under High Court Rules R 11.9 / Determined on the Papers; Judgment Delivered
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the judgment of 9 September 2009 should be recalled under r 11.9 of the High Court Rules
- 2 Whether the applicants have met the principles from Horowhenua County v Nash (No. 2) to justify recall
Ratio Decidendi
The application to recall was dismissed because the applicants failed to demonstrate any of the recognised grounds for recall (no new or amended authority, no failure to draw the court's attention to relevant law, and no very special reason), applying Horowhenua County v Nash (No. 2) and High Court Rules r 11.9.
Court Disposition
Application to recall dismissed
Orders
- The application to recall the judgment is dismissed
- No order as to costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
FALOON V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC TAU CIV-2009-470-0319 12 October 2009IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY CIV-2009-470-0319BETWEEN CLARENCE JOHN FALOON AND RUTH ENID FALOON Applicants AND COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent Hearing: Determined on the Papers Judgment: 12 October 2009 at 1:00 pmJUDGMENT OF ASHER JThis judgment was delivered by me on 12 October 2009 at 1:00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules .. Registrar/Deputy Registrar .. DateSolicitors: C & R Faloon, 68 Waikite Road, Welcome Bay, Tauranga 3112 Crown Law Office, PO Box 2858, Wellington 6140[1] On 9 September 2009 the applicants sought to recall a judgment of 9 September 2009 under r 11.9 of the High Court Rules, which in itself was a judgment declining to recall an earlier judgment of 21 August 2009. [2] I do not consider it necessary for there to be a hearing of this request for recall, even though it is put in the form of an application. The proceedings were determined by the judgment of 21 August 2009, and I consider that the request on its face is without merit. [3] This is because no grounds have been put forward which meet the principles to be applied, as discussed by Wild CJ in Horowhenua County v Nash (No. 2) [1968] NZLR 632, at 633. In particular there has been no new or amended authority brought to my attention, there has been no failure to direct the Court's attention to a legislative provision or authoritative decision of relevance, and there is no very special reason where justice requires such a recall. [4] The application is dismissed. [5] Given that the respondents' notice of opposition largely followed the form of an earlier notice of opposition, there is no order as to costs.. Asher J