TULSI RAM NARESH V GORDON EDWARD MCCLUSKIE CA CA766/2008
The application was dismissed because the Court had no jurisdiction to grant the requested stay and the applicant did not demonstrate any basis for recalling the Court of Appeal's judgment.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-efd8bae1_9dcc_4cf4_9558_d6da0b6185ce.pdf
- Parties
- Appellant: Tulsi Ram Naresh; Respondent: Gordon Edward McCluskie
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 3 September 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal (court of Appeal) / Post Appeal Application for Stay And/or Recall
- Outcome
- Application for a stay and/or recall dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Judgment, Recall of Judgment, Leave to Appeal, Jurisdiction
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Tulsi Ram Naresh
Appellant
Gordon Edward McCluskie
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal (court of Appeal) / Post Appeal Application for Stay And/or Recall
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to grant a stay of the High Court judgment after the appeal was dismissed
- 2 Whether there was any basis to recall the Court of Appeal's judgment
- 3 Whether leave to appeal to the Supreme Court had been sought or was relevant
Ratio Decidendi
The application was dismissed because the Court had no jurisdiction to grant the requested stay and the applicant did not demonstrate any basis for recalling the Court of Appeal's judgment.
Court Disposition
Application for a stay and/or recall dismissed
Orders
- The application for a stay and/or recall is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
TULSI RAM NARESH V GORDON EDWARD MCCLUSKIE CA CA766/2008 3 September 2009IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA766/2008 [2009] NZCA 386BETWEEN TULSI RAM NARESH Appellant AND GORDON EDWARD MCCLUSKIE Respondent Court: William Young P, Hammond and O'Regan JJ Counsel: Appellant in Person A R Gilchrist for Respondent Judgment: 3 September 2009 at 11 am (On the papers)JUDGMENT OF THE COURT The application for a stay and/or recall is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by William Young P) [1] Mr Naresh filed on 24 August 2009 a document styled:APPLICATION FOR A LEAVE TO STAY AND APPLICATION TO STAY THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HIGH COURT CIV 2007-404 6152 HEARD AT AUCKLAND IN A RUSHEE/WISHEE FASHION AND DISMISSAL OF APPELLANT'S APPEAL AT APPEAL COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CIV 766/2008 WHERE APPELLANT WAS NOT REPRESENTED HEARD AT AUCKLAND OF TUESDAY, 21 JULY, 2009.[2] The appeal by Mr Naresh has been heard, determined and dismissed. As far as we are aware, there has been no application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. There is no basis upon which we could stay the judgment of the High Court (which this Court upheld) or stay the dismissal of the appellant's appeal. Looking at the document more carefully, however, it appears that in substance what the appellant seeks is in the nature of a recall of our judgment so that, in the appellant's own words, "the matter could go back to drawing board for further discussion and resolutions". [3] On either basis, the application must be dismissed. There is no jurisdiction to grant a stay as requested. And no basis for recalling the judgment has been demonstrated in the material filed.Solicitors: Vlatkovich & McGowan, Auckland for Respondent