Application for recall — District Court Rules 2014, r 11.9 — DAG Investment Holdings Ltd v Price [2019] NZDC 25898 — Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) — Rainbow Corp Ltd v Ryde Holdings Ltd (1992) 5 PRNZ 493 (CA) — Erwood v Maxted [2010] NZCA 93 — NSK v General Equipment Co Ltd [2016] NZHC 2721 — Space Airconditioning plc v Guy [2012] EWCA Civ 1664. The plaintiff in this matter sought a recall of a judgment dismissing its application for summary judgment against the first plaintiff on two grounds: that the court made an error in finding that information was not before the court (and that the plaintiff was also unaware) of how DAG took assignment of a loan facility and security, and what the consideration for the assignment was for those matters; and that it was not an appropriate case for summary judgment. The Court agreed that an error was made in relation to the statements that there was no information before the Court regarding consideration for the assignment, and information relating to what led to DAG being incorporated for taking assignment for the loans. However the Court noted that these matters did not form part of reasons for the judgment and were immaterial to the result. The Judge had declined to make an order for summary judgment because the first defendant had an arguable defence that the plaintiff acted in breach of its equitable duty both to act in good faith and to act for a proper purpose. Also it was arguable that the plaintiff had breached its duty to exercise reasonable care to obtain the best price reasonably possible for the property. The application for recall was therefore declined. No order for costs were made. Judgment Date: 4 February 2020.