New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Harassment act 1997

Legal area

Court

10 Jun 2021

ELLIOT v VANDENBERG [2021] NZHC 1378

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1378
Court

High Court

The settlement deed did not bar the respondent from relying on the appellant's pre-deed conduct in a Harassment Act application; alternatively the appellant's post-deed conduct in October 2019 alone constituted harassment justifying a five‑year restraining order; the High Court granted extension of time to appeal but dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the respondent on a 2B basis due to exceptional circumstances despite appellant's legal aid.
9 Mar 2020

TURNER v IKEDA [2020] NZHC 435

Citation

[2020] NZHC 435
Court

High Court

The respondent, as the successful party, is entitled to costs on a category 2B basis; the appellant did not succeed to any material degree so no reduction is justified; although the appellant's submissions were filed late this did not materially increase the overall costs and therefore no uplift is awarded.
16 Aug 2019

MITCHELL v NZ POLICE [2019] NZHC 2017

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2017
Court

High Court

The word "period" in s 21 of the Harassment Act must be interpreted as a finite duration; where no period is specified the default one year applies; because the original order had expired and the variation did not validly extend duration under s 22(4), the alleged contraventions occurred after expiry and convictions based on them must be quashed.
3 Jul 2019

PHILLIPS v R [2019] NZCA 277

Citation

[2019] NZCA 277
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to grant special leave because s144 requires the High Court first to be given the opportunity to grant or refuse leave within the statutory time; the applicant failed to seek High Court leave within the 21‑day period and never sought High Court leave, so the application must be declined.
29 May 2019

BURROWS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 1198

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1198
Court

High Court

High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal because there had been no finding under s14(2)(b) of the CPMIP Act by the District Court; alternatively, on the merits the District Court judge correctly applied the s9 standard and was entitled to find on the balance of probabilities that the appellant committed the acts forming the basis of the harassment charges and mens rea is not relevant at the s9 stage.
15 Aug 2018

BURROWS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 2088

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2088
Court

High Court

Although 'person' in the Harassment Act can include corporations and non-natural persons generally, the term does not extend to the Crown or entities that form part of the Crown (such as the Ministry of Justice and New Zealand Police) because restraining orders are injunctive in nature and longstanding constitutional and statutory rules (including the Crown Proceedings Act) preclude granting injunctions or equivalent relief directly against the Crown absent clear parliamentary language overriding those limits; s7 did not plainly displace those limits, so no jurisdiction to make restraining or…
8 Jul 2016

TORESEN v MURPHY [2016] NZHC 1549

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1549
Court

High Court

The High Court has jurisdiction under High Court Rules r 20.19(1)(c), s 34(2) of the Harassment Act 1997 and s 76 of the District Courts Act 1947 to make, by consent, a variation extending the restraining order indefinitely pending further order; it was just to grant that variation to conclude proceedings and avoid further cost, and to remit the matter to the District Court to seal and issue the orders.
10 Jun 2011

MUNRO V COLLECTION HOUSE (NZ) LIMITED HC AK CIV-2010-404-8473

Citation

openlaw-5377ef67_7925_4184_88ad_dd07098aef72.pdf
Court

High Court

Strike-out was upheld because the communications were carried out for a lawful purpose of recovering an alleged debt and that lawful purpose under s17 of the Harassment Act precluded a finding of harassment; accordingly a restraining order was unnecessary and the District Court's costs award was not interfered with.
9 Sept 2009

KAZAZI V FLOOD HC WN CIV-2009-435-000121

Citation

openlaw-6203522b_da0f_4ce7_86d4_e2be072bc145.pdf
Court

High Court

The District Court correctly applied the Harassment Act 1997, the factual findings that only limited incidents occurred did not establish the necessary pattern or necessity for a restraining order, and the High Court will not disturb those findings or the exercise of discretion; appeal dismissed.