GRACE HADEN V NEIL EDWARD WELLS HC AK CIV-2008-404-5500

GRACE HADEN V NEIL EDWARD WELLS HC AK CIV-2008-404-5500

The Registrar's refusal to file was justified because the tendered documents were fundamentally deficient in form and substance, not constituting the required motion/statement of claim under s 9(1) Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and r 30.3, did not provide adequate notice and were incapable of giving rise to legal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-f7c9a4af_4af0_407f_9978_1ab787cd8233.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: GRACE HADEN; Second Plaintiff: VERISURE INVESTIGATIONS LIMITED; First Defendant: NEIL EDWARD WELLS; Second Defendant: WYN HOADLEY; Third Defendant: GRAEME JOHN COUTTS
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
1 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Review of Registrar's Decision Under High Court Rules R 2.11 / Interlocutory Application for Review — Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application to review the Registrar's decision dismissed.
Legal Topics
Registrar Refusal to File Documents, Form and Filing Requirements, Res Judicata/abuse of Process, New Evidence and Applications to Reopen
Defamation Civil Procedure Judicial Review High Court Rules Registrar Refusal to File Documents Form and Filing Requirements Res Judicata/abuse of Process New Evidence and Applications to Reopen

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GRACE HADEN

First Plaintiff

VERISURE INVESTIGATIONS LIMITED

Second Plaintiff

NEIL EDWARD WELLS

First Defendant

WYN HOADLEY

Second Defendant

GRAEME JOHN COUTTS

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review of Registrar's Decision Under High Court Rules R 2.11 / Interlocutory Application for Review — Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Registrar properly refused to file the documents tendered
  2. 2 Whether the documents complied with s 9(1) Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and r 30.3 High Court Rules (i.e. motion and statement of claim)
  3. 3 Whether the application was an impermissible collateral attack on a final District Court judgment (res judicata/abuse of process)

Ratio Decidendi

The Registrar's refusal to file was justified because the tendered documents were fundamentally deficient in form and substance, not constituting the required motion/statement of claim under s 9(1) Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and r 30.3, did not provide adequate notice and were incapable of giving rise to legal consequences; moreover prior appeals and judicial review had failed so a further collateral challenge could not succeed.

Court Disposition

Application to review the Registrar's decision dismissed.

Orders

  • Application to review the Registrar's decision dismissed.