CLARENCE JOHN FALOON AND ANOR V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE CA680/2009
The application for recall was declined because the applicants sought recall on the basis of insufficient factual background in the judgment, which does not meet the limited permissible grounds for recall (accidental slip/omission or new law); the application was effectively an attempt to relitigate substantive...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-24391dd8_4971_48d4_a312_e16e40c36764.pdf
- Parties
- First Applicant: CLARENCE JOHN FALOON; Second Applicant: RUTH ENID FALOON; Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 10 June 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Recall (civil) / Post Judgment Recall Application
- Outcome
- Application for recall declined.
- Legal Topics
- Recall of Judgment, Security for Costs, Judgment Review, Procedural Grounds
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
First Applicant
RUTH ENID FALOON
Second Applicant
THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Recall (civil) / Post Judgment Recall Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the judgment should be recalled
- 2 Whether omission of factual background justifies recall
- 3 Whether the application is an improper attempt to relitigate substantive findings
Ratio Decidendi
The application for recall was declined because the applicants sought recall on the basis of insufficient factual background in the judgment, which does not meet the limited permissible grounds for recall (accidental slip/omission or new law); the application was effectively an attempt to relitigate substantive findings and so must be refused.
Court Disposition
Application for recall declined.
Orders
- The application for recall of the judgment dated 31 May 2010 is declined.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CLARENCE JOHN FALOON AND ANOR V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE CA680/2009 10 June 2010IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA680/2009 [2010] NZCA 242BETWEEN CLARENCE JOHN FALOON First Applicant AND RUTH ENID FALOON Second Applicant AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent Counsel: Applicants in person J A L Oliver for Respondent Judgment: 10 June 2010 at 10.30 amJUDGMENT OF ARNOLD JThe application for recall of the judgment dated 31 May 2010 is declined.REASONS[1] The applicants apply for the recall or reopening of the judgment which I gave dated 31 May 2010 declining their application for review of the Registrar's refusal to dispense with security for costs. The basis of the application is that I did not give sufficient factual background in my decision, as outlined in the affidavits which they filed in support of the application.[2] This is not proper basis on which to apply for recall. The purpose of applications for recall was explained by this Court in Erwood v Maxted, where it was noted that that the grounds upon which judgments may be recalled are strictly limited.1 The Court issued guidelines for recall of judgments in civil proceedings.2These make it plain that the power to recall is principally for accidental slips or omissions, or where there is a legislative provision or authoritative judgment that is either new or was not brought to the Court's attention at the hearing. A recall will not be granted where the true purpose of the application is simply to relitigate matters or to challenge the Court's substantive findings. The present application is of this latter type. [3] The application for recall is declined.Solicitors: Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent1 Erwood v Maxted [2010] NZCA 93, at [3].2 At [23].