YOUNG v ROSS [2023] NZHC 2795

YOUNG v ROSS [2023] NZHC 2795

The application was struck out because it sought to relitigate issues already finally determined on appeal and did not comply with the High Court Rules; accordingly it constituted an abuse of process and the duty Judge was entitled to strike it out under r5.35B.

Citation
[2023] NZHC 2795
Parties
First Applicant: Philip Roger Young; Second Applicant: Progressive Accountants Limited; First Respondent: Philip Nicholas Ross; Second Respondent: District Court of New Zealand; Third Respondent: High Court of New Zealand
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
5 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Referral to Duty Judge Under High Court Rules R5.35 A; Strike Out on Own Initiative Under R5.35 B
Outcome
Claim struck out as an abuse of process
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Strike Out, Finality of Litigation, High Court Rules R5.35 a and R5.35 B, Appeal Exhaustion
Civil Procedure Judicial Review Administrative Law Abuse of Process Strike Out Finality of Litigation High Court Rules R5.35 a and R5.35 B Appeal Exhaustion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Roger Young

First Applicant

Progressive Accountants Limited

Second Applicant

Philip Nicholas Ross

First Respondent

District Court of New Zealand

Second Respondent

High Court of New Zealand

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Referral to Duty Judge Under High Court Rules R5.35 A; Strike Out on Own Initiative Under R5.35 B

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the filing was a proper judicial review or improper relitigation of finally decided matters
  2. 2 Whether the proceeding amounted to an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the application complied with the High Court Rules and sought appropriate remedies

Ratio Decidendi

The application was struck out because it sought to relitigate issues already finally determined on appeal and did not comply with the High Court Rules; accordingly it constituted an abuse of process and the duty Judge was entitled to strike it out under r5.35B.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out as an abuse of process

Orders

  • Claim struck out on the Judge's own initiative under High Court Rules r5.35B
  • Applicants formally notified of right to appeal to the Court of Appeal