Stockman v New Zealand Association of Counsellors Incorporated [2014] NZCA 560 (25 November 2014)

Last Updated: 5 December 2014

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA665/2013 [2014] NZCA 560
BETWEEN	PETER GERARD STOCKMAN Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND ASSOCIATION OF COUNSELLORS INCORPORATED Respondent

Court:	Wild, French and Miller JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person C Heaton for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	25 November 2014 at 3.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

1. The application for recall is dismissed.
2. There is no award as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French J)

[1] On 3 November 2014 this Court dismissed Mr Stockman’s application for an extension of time under r 43 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.^[1]
[2] Mr Stockman has now applied for an order recalling that judgment.
[3] We are satisfied that the recall application can be adequately and fairly dealt with on the papers.
[4] Mr Stockman submits that the judgment failed to address his argument that he had been granted a de facto extension of time by virtue of an appeal to the Supreme Court. He submits further that the failure to consider this argument brings the case within the third category of recall identified in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2).^[2]
[5] We do not accept that argument. There is no provision in the Rules for deemed or de facto extensions of time and the basis of our decision was that in the face of the clear wording of r 43, the Court has no residual discretion.
[6] There are no grounds for recall and the application is accordingly dismissed.
[7] The respondent advised that it would abide the decision of the Court and therefore there will be no award of costs.

Solicitors:
Morrison Kent, Wellington for Respondent

---

^[1] Stockman v New Zealand Assoc of Counsellors Inc [2014] NZCA 531.

^[2] Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC).