New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Res judicata/finality

Legal area

Court

20 Jul 2023

LITTLE v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY | TE KĀHUI TURE O AOTEAROA [2023] NZHC 1880

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1880
Court

High Court

The amended statement of claim was struck out because it impermissibly seeks to relitigate and collateral‑attack issues finally determined by this Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court; under the correct statutory interpretation of the TTMRA a separate application to NZLS was required and entitlement did not 'crystallise' in 2012, so the ASOC disclosed no arguable cause of action and constituted an abuse of process.
5 May 2021

TITO v TITO [2021] NZCA 164

Citation

[2021] NZCA 164
Court

Court of Appeal

Because the applicant had previously appealed to this Court (and sought leave to the Supreme Court), the judgment of this Court is final on the matters now sought to be relitigated; a second appeal is not open and the correct procedure would be an application to recall the prior judgment, therefore the application for an extension of time to appeal was properly declined.
18 Jun 2020

THE COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE v HARRISON [2020] NZHC 1380

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1380
Court

High Court

A restraining order under s25 CPRA is not available in respect of property related to a period of criminal activity after final asset and profit forfeiture orders have been determined and sealed; ss55 and 83 do not permit enforcement of a profit forfeiture order against property not specified in the order such that conversion to a freezing order is inappropriate; furthermore the $23,000 remained a member's interest protected by s127 of the KiwiSaver Act and could not be reassigned or placed in the Official Assignee's custody, therefore the application to restrain or freeze the funds is declin…
15 Jun 2020

SAWYER v EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY [2020] NZCA 237

Citation

[2020] NZCA 237
Court

Court of Appeal

The proceeding was struck out because it constituted a collateral attack on prior final determinations that the settlement agreement was valid and binding (including this Court's refusal of leave), and because the Court of Appeal's review jurisdiction under s213 ERA is narrowly confined (per Moodie) and the applicant disclosed no reasonably arguable ground within that jurisdiction; the debaring application was declined and costs awarded to the third respondent.
24 Aug 2016

PAGE v OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE [2016] NZHC 1988

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1988
Court

High Court

Application dismissed because applicant failed to identify any new evidence or any defect in the original adjudication proceeding sufficient to satisfy s 309(1)(a); underlying Environment Court costs judgment remained unchallenged by appeal or set‑aside proceedings and the annulment jurisdiction is not a vehicle to relitigate those merits; serial applications without new material are impermissible.
12 Jul 2016

Nickalls v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 187
Court

District Court

The Court dismissed the appeal: ACC's setting of attendant care and home help rates was a lawful exercise of its broad statutory discretion under s81 and Schedule clause 14; no deemed decision arose from the 2007 correspondence; allegations of discrimination failed; the 2008 review decision bound the appellant and precluded re‑litigation; Williams v ACC is fact specific and not a universal precedent.
1 Apr 2016

Haythorne v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 83
Court

District Court

The judge ruled that the appellant cannot proceed on grounds seeking to relitigate or rely on alleged injuries from the 2000 motor accident already determined against her in the 2003 review decision; the respondent’s preliminary submission is accepted and the appeal is limited to issues arising from the respondent’s relevant 2012 and 2013 decisions without reopening the 2003 finding; if the appellant wishes to revisit 2003 she must seek a late review.
3 Nov 2010

NICHOLAS PAUL ALFRED REEKIE V TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED HC AK CIV-2010-404-004893

Citation

openlaw-d45eaba6_e84a_44b2_89ac_c6cca4357527.pdf
Court

High Court

Appeal dismissed: the Authority was entitled to treat the repeat complaint as frivolous and vexatious under s11; the 1993 convictions were not private given their seriousness and their revival by 2003 convictions; Standard 7 did not apply to an individual in these circumstances; the programme was a drama based on a true story so no disclaimer was required; NZBORA double jeopardy was not engaged as ongoing publicity is not a second punishment.
15 May 2008

CENTRAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY LTD V CIR HC TAU CIV 2003-470-856

Citation

openlaw-26d63db7_2fda_4a5a_8e54_d7b8ad751ecd.pdf
Court

High Court

The applications were struck out because they were collateral attacks on final and determinative orders (including the 2 October 2006 winding up order and the Court of Appeal's decisions), Mr Faloon had no standing or authority to represent the company, and the Court therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain the applications; accordingly they were unarguable and an abuse of process and indemnity costs were awarded against Mr Faloon.