Faloon v Commissioner of Inland Revenue

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA208/2016
[2016] NZCA 588

BETWEEN	CLARENCE JOHN FALOON Applicant
AND	COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent

Court:

Randerson, Cooper and Winkelmann JJ

Counsel:

Applicant in person
D W Jacyk for Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)

8 December 2016 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Winkelmann J)

We have received Mr Faloon’s application dated 12 November 2016 for recall or “reopening” of the judgment delivered by us in this proceeding on 11 November 2016.[1]
[1]Faloon v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2016] NZCA 537.
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 and 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]
[2]Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633.
The application for recall is declined.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Clarence John Faloon, the applicant, sought to appeal a decision made by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in New Zealand. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand by Randerson, Cooper, and Winkelmann JJ. The applicant appeared in person, while D W Jacyk represented the respondent, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. The appeal was decided on the papers and the judgment was delivered on 8 December 2016. The court declined the applicant's request for recall of the judgment.

The central issue before the court was whether the grounds provided by Mr Faloon for recalling the judgment were sufficient. The applicant argued that the judgment should be recalled to re-run arguments already presented during the appeal hearing. The court examined whether these grounds met the criteria for recall as established in the case of Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2). The applicant's attempt to re-run previous arguments did not meet the threshold for recall, as it did not present a new ground for reconsideration.

The Court of Appeal, in its judgment, found that Mr Faloon's application for recall did not satisfy the legal standards required for such a request. The arguments presented by the applicant were essentially a reiteration of points already addressed in the earlier judgment. As such, the court concluded that there was no valid ground for recall, and the application was declined. The court's decision was based on the established legal principles regarding recall applications and the specific circumstances of this case.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established