New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Abuse of process / collateral attack

Legal area

Court

19 Jul 2019

SINGH v BOUTIQUE BODY CORPORATES LIMITED [2019] NZHC 1707

Citation

(2019) 20 NZCPR 297
Court

High Court

The court struck out the negligence claims against Boutique Body Corporates Ltd and struck paragraphs [33](b),(33)(c) and [34] against the committee members because the amended pleading failed to allege an assumption of personal responsibility or sufficient proximity to found a duty of care to the individual owner beyond duties owed to the body corporate, and insofar as the committee allegations sought to relitigate matters already determined they amounted to an abuse of process; however claims concerning failure to provide reports under the s74 scheme remain live against the body corporate/c…
9 Apr 2019

WILLIAMS v THE CROWN NEW ZEALAND ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2019] NZHC 754

Citation

[2019] NZHC 754
Court

High Court

Proceeding struck out because it amounted to an impermissible collateral attack on issues finally determined by earlier decisions in District Court, High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court (abuse of process), and insofar as it sought redress for alleged judicial conduct it was barred by Attorney-General v Chapman; the pleading did not disclose an arguable cause and was vexatious and diffuse.
12 Feb 2019

BLUE REACH SERVICES AND BLUE REACH WIRELESS LIMITED v SPARK NEW ZEALAND TRADING LIMITED [2019] NZCA 2

Citation

[2019] NZAR 333
Court

Court of Appeal

Section 106(9) of the Commerce Act confers on anything said or provided to the Commerce Commission by any person the same privilege as if given in court, which bars civil claims (including s 9 Fair Trading Act claims) based on those communications; that privilege extends to voluntary statements by applicants and therefore the High Court rightly struck out the proceedings.
10 Dec 2018

SINGH v BOUTIQUE BODY CORPORATES LTD & ORS [2018] NZHC 3233

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3233
Court

High Court

The Court declined a broad s166 restraint of the High Court proceeding because many allegations raised issues properly to be determined in this separate forum, but made a limited s166 order restraining the plaintiff from continuing the counterclaim and third-party joinder in the District Court because those filings overlapped and would be an abuse of process; the Court found the statement of claim to be vague, unparticularised, mixing negligence and intentional torts and containing collateral attacks on prior judgments and therefore adjourned the strike-out to permit a single opportunity to f…
29 Sept 2006

YOUNG V LAND TRANSPORT SAFETY AUTHORITY HC CHCH CIV 2006-409-1309

Citation

openlaw-8a92cf82_61e6_4f96_af8a_e07e108ad9de.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court held the appeal was confined to questions of law, prior criminal determinations bind and cannot be re‑litigated (such relitigation is an abuse of process), and the appellant's entrenched willingness to use pre‑emptive violence makes him not a fit and proper person and a risk to public safety, justifying the LTSA's suspension and revocation of his P endorsement.

New Zealand Case Law

SINGH v BOUTIQUE BODY CORPORATES LIMITED [2019] NZHC 1707

WILLIAMS v THE CROWN NEW ZEALAND ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2019] NZHC 754

BLUE REACH SERVICES AND BLUE REACH WIRELESS LIMITED v SPARK NEW ZEALAND TRADING LIMITED [2019] NZCA 2

SINGH v BOUTIQUE BODY CORPORATES LTD & ORS [2018] NZHC 3233

YOUNG V LAND TRANSPORT SAFETY AUTHORITY HC CHCH CIV 2006-409-1309