New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mckenzie friend

Legal area

Court

6 Sept 2023

HAPI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZCA 424

Citation

[2023] NZCA 424
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to bring a second appeal was refused because the proposed grounds did not raise any matter of general or public importance and there was no real risk of miscarriage of justice given the uncontradicted evidence that the applicant intentionally damaged the police vehicle while lawfully detained; objections concerning a McKenzie friend and attacks on court sovereignty were without merit and insufficient to meet the high s237 threshold.
18 Nov 2022

ANGELO v HANS-WERNER LEHR & ORS [2022] NZHC 3033

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3033
Court

High Court

The District Court applied the correct legal approach and did not err in law: the Tribunal properly exercised its discretion under s105 RTA to refuse a rehearing because there was no procedural unfairness and no genuinely fresh evidence that could not reasonably have been presented earlier; consequently the High Court appeal alleging legal error fails and is dismissed; stay lifted and possession order affirmed.
17 Feb 2022

REREKURA v PRISON DIRECTOR, AUCKLAND SOUTH CORRECTIONS FACILITY (SERCO) & ANOR [2022] NZHC 208

Citation

[2022] NZHC 208
Court

High Court

Costs were awarded against non-party Thomas Cheng because he filed unsuccessful interlocutory applications that sought to be joined and to act as McKenzie friend in a closely related judicial review, demonstrating an intent to control and benefit from the litigation (making him the real party). His applications lacked sufficient public interest to justify reduction under r 14.7(e). Despite potential practical difficulties in enforcement given his custodial status and alleged impecuniosity, the court found it just to order costs to follow the event and fixed costs at 2B scale of $14,101 plus d…
7 Oct 2021

CHEN v AUCKLAND WEIHAO INVESTMENT LTD [2021] NZHC 2683

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2683
Court

High Court

The joinder application was dismissed because the amended pleading did not disclose a tenable cause of action against M & L Associates Ltd or Li Wang; alleged breaches of s 10 and AML/CFT do not give rise to private actions here, the alleged misconduct did not cause the plaintiff's loss nor affect the SPA's enforceability, and the proposed parties are not necessary to adjudicate the disputes before the Court.
3 Sept 2021

TAYLOR v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZHC 2303

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2303
Court

High Court

The court declined the claimed disbursement: although the invoice could likely be evidenced if the applicant filed verifying affidavit, the decisive legal reason is that r 14.12 and existing authority permit recovery of fees for advice/assistance only where provided by legal practitioners; fees charged by a non-lawyer/associated company for McKenzie Friend assistance are not recoverable as disbursements and expanding the categories should be done by rule amendment or Rules Committee, not by judicial decision.
28 Jun 2021

REREKURA v PRISON DIRECTOR, AUCKLAND SOUTH CORRECTIONS FACILITY (SERCO) [2021] NZHC 1555

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1555
Court

High Court

Application to act as McKenzie friend was declined because Cheng is a likely witness, creating an unacceptable conflict of roles and practical limitations (exclusion during cross-examination), there is a real risk of abuse of process given his parallel litigation and public interest activism, and logistical and taxpayer burdens; application to be joined as a party was declined because Cheng lacks a direct personal interest in the relief sought, joinder is not justified under r 4.56 or JRPA s14, and the joinder would amount to an abuse of process given overlapping proceedings and duplicative c…
17 Jun 2019

CRAIG v STRINGER [2019] NZHC 1363

Citation

[2019] 3 NZLR 743
Court

High Court

The Court held that although issue estoppel did not bar proof of whether Craig sexually harassed MacGregor because earlier proceedings involved different parties, the cumulative effect of multiple defamation proceedings on the same core issue constituted an abuse of process: permitting Craig to pursue the action against Stringer would be oppressive to MacGregor and unfair to Stringer. The Court therefore stayed Craig's proceeding against Stringer and the corresponding element of Stringer's claim concerning the same issue, while allowing discovery of specified documents, permitting a lawyer to…
16 Apr 2019

MC v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, ORANGA TAMARIKI [2019] NZHC 833

Citation

[2019] NZHC 833
Court

High Court

Leave to adduce further affidavit evidence was refused because the affidavits largely repeated pre-hearing matters, contained scandalous and irrelevant material and did not meet the 'special reasons' threshold in r20.16. The stay application was refused because the children's welfare and settled placements since 2016 would be prejudiced by delay, the decision did not materially alter the status quo, and the appeal as framed had no realistic prospects of success; therefore the balance of factors required to grant a stay was not met.
13 Feb 2017

SISSON v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2017] NZHC 148

Citation

[2017] NZHC 148
Court

High Court

Given the exceptional complexity of the consolidated proceedings and the interests of justice, the court exercised its discretion to permit Mr Hampton to act as Ms Sisson's McKenzie Friend despite his status as a potential witness, but limited his role to non‑speaking assistance (sitting beside, taking notes, advising and proposing questions/submissions) and prohibited him from addressing the Court or asking questions; the decision is not to be treated as a precedent.
5 Jun 2012

JODEN FINANCE LIMITED V DORAIRAJ HC AK CIV 2012-404-001985

Citation

openlaw-de6c16f6_a89c_4ae6_a296_42284bdc51e2.pdf
Court

High Court

The respondent is entitled to costs on discontinuance; indemnity costs were declined because the appellant acted mistakenly rather than in bad faith; costs are assessed on a 2B basis and uplifted by 50% because the appeal lacked merit under sch 1 cl 16(5) Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003, producing a costs component of $5,076 plus disbursements $403.70, total $5,479.70.