New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Malicious prosecution

Legal area

Court

29 Mar 2023

MOUNT v C & F LEGAL LIMITED [2023] NZHC 653

Citation

[2023] NZHC 653
Court

High Court

The plaintiff's claims were struck out because they constituted an impermissible collateral attack on final civil judgments (abuse of process), the pleadings failed to plead or could not establish essential elements (notably reliance and dishonest intent for deceit and lack of reasonable and probable cause and favourable termination for malicious prosecution), no duty of care was owed by the defendants to the plaintiff in the circumstances, and the claims were statute-barred under the Limitation Act 2010; pleadings also lacked necessary particulars of fraud and were thus untenable.
4 Apr 2022

DUNSTAN v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZHC 674

Citation

[2022] NZHC 674
Court

High Court

[2022] NZHC 674
23 Dec 2021

GARTH BOWKETT PATERSON v LEPIONKA & COMPANY INVESTMENTS LIMITED [2021] NZSC 191

Citation

[2021] NZSC 191
Court

Supreme Court

The recall application was allowed only to correct an apparent drafting error in the leave judgment (replacement of [6(a)] wording) and the leave judgment was reissued with that correction; all other grounds for recall were dismissed because the delivery issue had been determined in earlier proceedings or because the alleged 'pre-planned scheme' was not the subject of the applicant's notice for leave and thus outside the remit of the leave judgment.
14 Dec 2021

GALWAY v PUGH [2021] NZHC 3431

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3431
Court

High Court

The plaintiffs' causes of action accrued no later than the dates of the change of herd status (May–July 2008) and the prosecution/acquittal (commenced April 2009; acquitted 8 December 2014); limitation periods under the Limitation Act 1950 expired well before the statement of claim (11 December 2020); plaintiffs failed to plead or prove any arguable fraudulent concealment or late knowledge to postpone or disapply limitation; accordingly the pleading is time-barred and must be struck out as an abuse of process and frivolous/vexatious, and judgment entered for defendants.
3 Dec 2021

GARTH BOWKETT PATERSON v LEPIONKA & COMPANY INVESTMENTS LIMITED [2021] NZSC 171

Citation

[2021] NZSC 171
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeals merely repeat contentions already resolved in prior proceedings and therefore constitute an abuse of process; the malicious prosecution claim cannot succeed while the underlying adjudication remains extant, and the Court of Appeal was correct to strike out the appeals.
3 Aug 2021

GARTH BOWKETT PATERSON v LEPIONKA & COMPANY INVESTMENTS LIMITED [2021] NZCA 364

Citation

[2021] NZCA 364
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court struck out the appeals as the underlying High Court proceedings were frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process, principally because the claims were barred by res judicata following the Liability judgment and settlement and the malicious prosecution claim lacked the necessary favourable termination; however the appellant may appeal the s166 barring order itself and that aspect is allowed to proceed.
26 Aug 2020

PATERSON v LEPIONKA & CO INVESTMENTS LTD [2020] NZHC 2184

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2184
Court

High Court

The Court struck out the mortgagee proceeding as an abuse of process barred by res judicata because the matters and remedies pleaded were the same or should have been raised in the earlier fully litigated Main Judgment; struck out the bankruptcy proceeding because the pleaded malicious prosecution, abuse of process and dishonest assistance causes disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action (malicious prosecution failed the required element of an ultimately successful prior proceeding and other causes were collateral attacks or res judicata barred); having identified at least two prior pr…
24 Jul 2020

LINCOLN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL (COSTS) [2020] NZHC 1810

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1810
Court

High Court

Plaintiff was not an aided person for the substantive hearing so s45 protection did not apply to that hearing or to costs incurred prior to the date of the limited interim grants; the defendant is entitled to costs on a 2B basis for work up to 17 October 2019 and from the commencement of the substantive hearing, together with awarded disbursements and payment of interlocutory costs fixed earlier, but uplift for rejection of the Calderbank offer is declined given partial settlement of issues and the plaintiff's financial circumstances.
8 Jun 2020

Lincoln v Attorney-General (redacted version) [2020] NZHC 1252

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1252
Court

High Court

On the facts the Court found Police had reasonable and probable grounds to stop and arrest Lincoln for obstruction while discharging policing duties in response to a report of open carriage of an MSSA in public; psychiatric assessment and subsequent property inquiries were justified; no admissible evidence proved an unlawful assault, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution or trespass; plaintiff's claims dismissed.
5 Jun 2020

HEKE v NELSON CITY COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 1241

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1241
Court

High Court

Appointment of counsel to assist was refused because the case did not fall within established categories for such appointment, lacked wider public importance and raised issues previously litigated; the amended statement of claim was inadequately particularised (notably for misfeasance and malicious prosecution), and the plaintiff was ordered to file a further amended statement of claim by 7 August 2020 with an unless order that failure to comply will result in striking out and costs to defendants on a 2B basis plus disbursements.