Legal Research
Cases
Faloon v Palmerston North Airport Limited

Faloon v Palmerston North Airport Limited

Case [2013] NZHC 2205 28 August 2013

Judicial Review

Statutory Construction

Resource Management Act 1991

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2012-485-2265 [2013] NZHC 2205

UNDER the Resource Management Act 1991

BETWEEN

CLARENCE JOHN FALOON Appellant

AND

PALMERSTON NORTH AIRPORT LIMITED

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

C J Faloon in person
J W Maassen for Respondent

Judgment:

28 August 2013

JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J (RECALL OF JUDGMENT)

[1] The appellant has applied to recall my judgment dismissing his appeal against a judgment of the Environment Court. The respondent does not wish to incur further costs and so abides.

[2] The grounds advanced raise no matter relevant in terms of the decision of

Wild CJ in Horowhenua County v Nash (No. 2).1

[3] The application is dismissed.

Williams J

1 Horowhenua County v Nash (N0. 2) [1968] NZLR 632.

CLARENCE JOHN FALOON v PALMERSTON NORTH AIRPORT LIMITED [2013] NZHC 2205 [28 August
2013]

Details

AGLC: Faloon v Palmerston North Airport Limited [2013] NZHC 2205
Case: [2013] NZHC 2205
Decision Date: 28 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Clarence John Faloon, the appellant, brought an appeal against a decision of the Environment Court, with Palmerston North Airport Limited, the respondent, opposing the appeal. The primary focus of the appeal was a matter under the Resource Management Act 1991. The case was heard on the papers, and the appellant appeared in person, while the respondent was represented by J W Maassen.

The legal issues that the court had to address in this case involved the grounds for recalling the previous judgment that had dismissed the appellant's appeal. The appellant's application for recall was based on certain grounds that he believed were relevant to the decision. However, the court had to determine if these grounds were indeed relevant and warranted a recall of the earlier judgment.

Williams J examined the grounds for recall as advanced by the appellant and found that they did not raise any matter relevant to the decision made in the earlier case of Horowhenua County v Nash (No. 2). As a result, the application for recall was dismissed, and the respondent did not wish to incur further costs, thereby agreeing to abide by the decision. The case highlights the importance of ensuring that the grounds for recall are indeed relevant and significant in the context of the specific case and its legal precedents.

Orders