FALOON v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2016] NZCA 588
The application for recall was declined because the applicant only sought to re‑run arguments already considered by the Court and therefore failed to satisfy the Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) test for recall.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] NZCA 588
- Parties
- Applicant: Clarence John Faloon; Respondent: Commissioner of Inland Revenue
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 8 December 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Post Judgment Application for Recall
- Outcome
- Application for recall declined.
- Legal Topics
- Recall of Judgment, Reopening Judgment, Procedural Grounds for Recall
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
Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Judgment Application for Recall
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant established grounds for recall of the Court's judgment
- 2 Whether re-running arguments already addressed at the hearing can justify recall
Ratio Decidendi
The application for recall was declined because the applicant only sought to re‑run arguments already considered by the Court and therefore failed to satisfy the Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) test for recall.
Court Disposition
Application for recall declined.
Orders
- Application for recall declined.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
FALOON v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2016] NZCA 588 [8 December 2016]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA208/2016[2016] NZCA 588BETWEEN CLARENCE JOHN FALOONApplicantAND COMMISSIONER OF INLANDREVENUERespondentCourt: Randerson, Cooper and Winkelmann JJCounsel: Applicant in personD W Jacyk for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)8 December 2016 at 11.30 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for recall is declined.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Winkelmann J)[1] We have received Mr Faloon's application dated 12 November 2016 for recall or "reopening" of the judgment delivered by us in this proceeding on11 November 2016.1[2] The grounds Mr Faloon sets out in his application for recall are simply an attempt to re-run arguments already raised at the hearing of this appeal and1 Faloon v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2016] NZCA 537.addressed in the judgment. Mr Faloon does not therefore make out a ground for recall in accordance with the test established in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2).2[3] The application for recall is declined.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent2 Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633.