FALOON v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2017] NZCA 5
The second application for recall was declined because the applicant sought to re-argue issues already decided and failed to satisfy the Horowhenua County v Nash test for recall.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] NZCA 5
- Parties
- Applicant: Clarence John Faloon; Respondent: Commissioner of Inland Revenue
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 9 February 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Recall (court of Appeal) / Decision on Second Application for Recall (on the Papers)
- Outcome
- Second application for recall declined.
- Legal Topics
- Recall of Judgment, Reopening Proceedings, Res Judicata, Finality of Litigation, Horowhenua County V Nash Test
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
Application for Recall (court of Appeal) / Decision on Second Application for Recall (on the Papers)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the second application for recall meets the test established in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2)
- 2 Whether arguments already raised and determined in these and other proceedings justify recall or reopening
Ratio Decidendi
The second application for recall was declined because the applicant sought to re-argue issues already decided and failed to satisfy the Horowhenua County v Nash test for recall.
Court Disposition
Second application for recall declined.
Orders
- Second application for recall is declined.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
FALOON v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2017] NZCA 5 [9 February 2017]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA208/2016[2017] NZCA 5BETWEEN CLARENCE JOHN FALOONApplicantAND COMMISSIONER OF INLANDREVENUERespondentCourt: Randerson, Cooper and Winkelmann JJCounsel: Applicant in personD W Jacyk for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)9 February 2017 at 3 pmJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe second application for recall is declined.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Winkelmann J)[1] Mr Faloon has filed a second application for recall or reopening of the judgment delivered by us in this proceeding on 11 November 2016.1[2] In support of his application for recall, Mr Faloon seeks to advance arguments already raised and determined in these proceedings and in others.1 Faloon v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2016] NZCA 537.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 second application for recall is declined.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent2 Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633.