NAVARATNAM v HIGH COURT OF AUCKLAND [2022] NZHC 371

NAVARATNAM v HIGH COURT OF AUCKLAND [2022] NZHC 371

The proceeding was plainly an abuse of process because it impermissibly sought judicial review of High Court decisions without exceptional circumstances; it disclosed no reasonably arguable case and was frivolous/vexatious, so under HCR r5.35B and r15.1 the claim was struck out and the proceeding dismissed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] NZHC 371
Parties
First Applicant: Vashiharan Navaratnam; Second Applicant: Sherine Navaratnam; First Respondent: High Court of Auckland; Second Respondent: HG Metal Manufacturing Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
7 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Pre‑service Referral Under HCR R5.35 A; Considered Under R5.35 B With Strike Out and Dismissal Orders
Outcome
proceeding struck out and dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Strike Out, Natural Justice, Finality of Superior Court Decisions, Appeal Rights
Civil Procedure Judicial Review Administrative Law Arbitration Law Abuse of Process Strike Out Natural Justice Finality of Superior Court Decisions +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vashiharan Navaratnam

First Applicant

Sherine Navaratnam

Second Applicant

High Court of Auckland

First Respondent

HG Metal Manufacturing Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Pre‑service Referral Under HCR R5.35 A; Considered Under R5.35 B With Strike Out and Dismissal Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the proceeding is plainly an abuse of process
  2. 2 whether decisions of the High Court are susceptible to judicial review
  3. 3 whether the claim discloses a reasonably arguable case

Ratio Decidendi

The proceeding was plainly an abuse of process because it impermissibly sought judicial review of High Court decisions without exceptional circumstances; it disclosed no reasonably arguable case and was frivolous/vexatious, so under HCR r5.35B and r15.1 the claim was struck out and the proceeding dismissed.

Court Disposition

proceeding struck out and dismissed

Orders

  • Claim struck out
  • Proceeding dismissed