New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Abuse of process and delay

Legal area

Court

21 Dec 2020

KARMARKAR v MOORE [2020] NZHC 3480

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3480
Court

High Court

Proceedings were struck out because the applicant repeatedly failed to secure legal representation for the company he purports to represent, causing prejudice and delay; the claim disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action in light of the applicant advancing matters not before the LCRO and confusing review of the LCRO decision with substantive complaints against counsel, rendering the proceedings an abuse of process and justifying strike out under r 15.1.
25 Sept 2017

FRANCISC CATALIN DELIU v THE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE AND THE AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE NO. 1 OF THE NZ LAW SOCIETY [2017] NZHC 2318

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2318
Court

High Court

Freedom of expression did not protect repetitive, intemperate and unfounded allegations against judges that undermined public confidence; the appellant's conduct occurred while providing regulated services under s7(1)(a) or work connected to such services; no absolute or qualified privilege applied to defeat disciplinary charges; judicial criticisms could be admitted under s239 for weight assessment; evidence sufficed on balance of probabilities; 15 months' suspension and specified costs were a proportionate response and within statutory powers.
29 Aug 2013

MANGAWHAI RATEPAYERS' AND RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION INC v KAIPARA DISTRICT COUNCIL [2013] NZHC 2220

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2220
Court

High Court

The strike-out application was dismissed as to the first cause of action. The Court held that ss 117–118 raised novel and potentially fact-dependent issues and that it was inappropriate to decide the question at strike-out; factual inquiry could be relevant to remedies available to creditors and to the interpretation of the protection regime. Delay and cost did not warrant striking out the claim as an abuse of process given the circumstances, acknowledged irregularities and the public importance of the issues; accordingly the substantive claim must proceed to hearing.

New Zealand Case Law

KARMARKAR v MOORE [2020] NZHC 3480

FRANCISC CATALIN DELIU v THE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE AND THE AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE NO. 1 OF THE NZ LAW SOCIETY [2017] NZHC 2318

MANGAWHAI RATEPAYERS' AND RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION INC v KAIPARA DISTRICT COUNCIL [2013] NZHC 2220