STOCKMAN v NEW ZEALAND ASSOCIATION OF COUNSELLORS INC CA665/2013 [2014] NZCA 560
The recall application was dismissed because there is no rule-based basis for deemed or de facto extensions of time and, given the unambiguous wording of r 43, the Court has no residual discretion to extend time; consequently the applicant's argument did not establish grounds for recall.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] NZCA 560
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Gerard Stockman; Respondent: New Zealand Association of Counsellors Incorporated
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 25 November 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Recall of Judgment / On the Papers
- Outcome
- Application for recall dismissed; no order as to costs.
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Recall of Judgment, Jurisdiction
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Peter Gerard Stockman
Applicant
New Zealand Association of Counsellors Incorporated
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Recall of Judgment / On the Papers
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court had jurisdiction to grant an extension of time under r 43 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005
- 2 Whether an appeal to the Supreme Court can operate as a de facto or deemed extension of time
- 3 Whether the circumstances justify recall of the Court's prior judgment under established categories such as Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2)
Ratio Decidendi
The recall application was dismissed because there is no rule-based basis for deemed or de facto extensions of time and, given the unambiguous wording of r 43, the Court has no residual discretion to extend time; consequently the applicant's argument did not establish grounds for recall.
Court Disposition
Application for recall dismissed; no order as to costs.
Orders
- The application for recall is dismissed.
- There is no award as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
STOCKMAN v NEW ZEALAND ASSOCIATION OF COUNSELLORS INC CA665/2013 [2014] NZCA 560 [25 November 2014]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA665/2013[2014] NZCA 560BETWEEN PETER GERARD STOCKMANApplicantAND NEW ZEALAND ASSOCIATION OFCOUNSELLORS INCORPORATEDRespondentCourt: Wild, French and Miller JJCounsel: Applicant in personC Heaton for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)25 November 2014 at 3.30 pmJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for recall is dismissed.B There is no award as to costs.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by French J)[1] On 3 November 2014 this Court dismissed Mr Stockman's application for anextension of time under r 43 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.1[2] Mr Stockman has now applied for an order recalling that judgment.1 Stockman v New Zealand Assoc of Counsellors Inc [2014] NZCA 531.[3] We are satisfied that the recall application can be adequately and fairly dealt with on the papers.[4] Mr Stockman submits that the judgment failed to address his argument that he had been granted a de facto extension of time by virtue of an appeal to the Supreme Court. He submits further that the failure to consider this argument brings the case within the third category of recall identified in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2).2[5] We do not accept that argument. There is no provision in the Rules for deemed or de facto extensions of time and the basis of our decision was that in the face of the clear wording of r 43, the Court has no residual discretion.[6] There are no grounds for recall and the application is accordingly dismissed.[7] The respondent advised that it would abide the decision of the Court and therefore there will be no award of costs.Solicitors:Morrison Kent, Wellington for Respondent2 Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC).