New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Res judicata/abuse of process

Legal area

Court

5 Feb 2019

WRIGHT v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2019] NZHC 59

Citation

[2019] NZHC 59
Court

High Court

The court held that the s8B certificate and the s10(1)(b)(ii) certificate were invalid because they failed to give full particulars and did not properly address the statutory 'serious danger' requirement, rendering the initial detention unlawful; however later actions (the s16 judicial review and the s12 certificate on 27 November 2009) may have legitimised detention prospectively from that date; on security for costs, the DHB's application was dismissed because the public interest and arguable merits of the Mental Health Act issues outweighed the need for security, the police's security appl…
22 Apr 2015

CRESER V CRESER [2015] NZCA 128

Citation

[2015] NZCA 128
Court

Court of Appeal

Time for review was extended but the Registrar's refusal to dispense with security was confirmed because the appeal was not exceptional or of public importance, impecuniosity alone is insufficient to waive security, the appeal was unlikely to succeed given prior litigation and long delay, and the Registrar acted within the discretionary framework set out in Reekie v Attorney-General.
25 Mar 2013

MA V TAY & ORS HC AK CIV 2011-404-008215

Citation

openlaw-b25ac31c_f60e_40aa_9def_690a1c90f92e.pdf
Court

High Court

The court dismissed the security for costs application because a prior summary judgment in Ms Ma's favour and the likelihood of general damages made ordering security unjustified; the court struck out Mr Tay's separate claim as an abuse of process/res judicata because the alleged joint venture and disproportionate capital contributions were issues that could and should have been raised as a counterclaim or set-off in the earlier proceedings; the application for summary judgment by Ms Ma on the later claim was dismissed because there were genuine factual disputes about the existence and terms…
1 Feb 2012

GRACE HADEN V NEIL EDWARD WELLS HC AK CIV-2008-404-5500

Citation

openlaw-f7c9a4af_4af0_407f_9978_1ab787cd8233.pdf
Court

High Court

The Registrar's refusal to file was justified because the tendered documents were fundamentally deficient in form and substance, not constituting the required motion/statement of claim under s 9(1) Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and r 30.3, did not provide adequate notice and were incapable of giving rise to legal consequences; moreover prior appeals and judicial review had failed so a further collateral challenge could not succeed.

New Zealand Case Law

WRIGHT v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2019] NZHC 59

CRESER V CRESER [2015] NZCA 128

MA V TAY & ORS HC AK CIV 2011-404-008215

GRACE HADEN V NEIL EDWARD WELLS HC AK CIV-2008-404-5500