BURROWS v THOMSON [2018] NZHC 2761

BURROWS v THOMSON [2018] NZHC 2761

The High Court upheld the District Court: the appellant's repeated contacts and conduct constituted a pattern of specified acts amounting to harassment under ss3 and 4, s17 did not justify his conduct, the respondent subjectively and objectively feared for her safety and the making of a restraining order for three...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 2761
Parties
Appellant: Wayne John Burrows; Respondent: Amy Katrina Compton Thomson
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
24 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against District Court Restraining Order Under the Harassment Act 1997 / High Court Appellate Hearing (appeal From District Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; District Court restraining order upheld
Legal Topics
Restraining Order Necessity, S17 Lawful Purpose Defence, Definition of Specified Acts (s4), Harassment Definition (s3), Freedom of Expression Limits (nzbora), Intention to Create Legal Relations in Social Agreements, Alleged Judicial Bias, Appropriate Duration of Restraining Order
Harassment Act 1997 Civil Restraint Orders New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Contract Formation (intention to Create Legal Relations) Appellate Review Restraining Order Necessity S17 Lawful Purpose Defence Definition of Specified Acts (s4) +5 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 7 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wayne John Burrows

Appellant

Amy Katrina Compton Thomson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against District Court Restraining Order Under the Harassment Act 1997 / High Court Appellate Hearing (appeal From District Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent established a pattern of behaviour amounting to harassment under s3 and s4 of the Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether the restraining order was necessary to protect the applicant from further harassment (s16(1)(c))
  3. 3 Whether the respondent feared for her safety such that specified acts in s4(1)(f) are engaged

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court upheld the District Court: the appellant's repeated contacts and conduct constituted a pattern of specified acts amounting to harassment under ss3 and 4, s17 did not justify his conduct, the respondent subjectively and objectively feared for her safety and the making of a restraining order for three years was necessary to protect her.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; District Court restraining order upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Restraining order upheld for three years on standard conditions