Faloon v Palmerston North Airport Limited

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA49/2014
[2014] NZCA 372

BETWEEN	CLARENCE JOHN FALOON Appellant
AND	PALMERSTON NORTH AIRPORT LIMITED Respondent

Court:

Harrison, Wild and French JJ

Counsel:

Applicant in Person
J W Maassen for Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)

6 August 2014 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application to recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Harrison J)

The appellant, Clarence Faloon, applied on 10 July 2014 to recall a judgment of this Court delivered on 2 July 2014 dismissing his application for special leave to appeal.[1]
[1]Faloon v Palmerston North Airport Ltd [2014] NZCA 291.
We agree with Mr Maassen for the respondent, Palmerston North Airport Ltd, that the application to recall seeks to challenge substantive findings of fact made in earlier judgments and is irrelevant to whether Mr Faloon’s appeal raised a question of law justifying special leave being granted.
Mr Faloon’s application to recall our judgment is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

Solicitors:
Cooper Rapley, Palmerston North for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Clarence John Faloon has appealed against a judgment dismissing his claim for damages against Palmerston North Airport Limited. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand was tasked with considering the appeal and subsequently dismissed the claim. The primary focus of the appeal was whether the Court of Appeal had erred in dismissing the appellant's application for special leave to appeal. This appeal centred on the interpretation and application of legal principles concerning the grant of special leave to appeal.

The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the application to recall the earlier judgment was substantively justified. Specifically, the court had to determine if the application to recall sought to challenge factual findings or if it was pertinent to the legal question of whether the appeal raised a matter of law warranting special leave. The appellant argued that the Court of Appeal had failed to consider certain evidence and had misapplied the law, warranting a re-examination of the case. The respondent contended that the application to recall was an attempt to re-litigate factual disputes, which was not permissible under the rules governing special leave to appeal.

In dismissing the application to recall, the Court of Appeal found that the appellant's arguments were misdirected. The court held that the application did not address the legal question of whether the appeal raised a point of law that warranted special leave. Instead, it sought to challenge the factual findings made in the earlier judgments, which was outside the scope of the recall application. The Court of Appeal concluded that the appellant's application failed to meet the criteria for special leave to appeal and therefore dismissed the application to recall. There was no order regarding costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established