New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike out procedure

Legal area

Court

7 Oct 2022

MEEK v NEW ZEALAND RUGBY UNION INCORPORATED [2022] NZHC 2591

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2591
Court

High Court

The claim was struck out because any compensatory claim arising from the 1980s injury is statute barred by the ACC statutory bar and by the Limitation Act longstop; additionally, there is no reasonably arguable cause of action against NZRU in contract or tort given the Foundation's independent legal status, absence of contractual elements, lack of recognised duty to ensure ACC claims, and failure to plead a prohibited ground for discrimination or any published defamatory statement.
4 May 2022

REA and v 360 DEGREES LIMITED [2022] NZHC 916

Citation

[2022] NZHC 916
Court

High Court

The Court struck out the plaintiffs' claim against Auckland Council because the claim was filed after both the six year primary limitation and the three year late knowledge period: the late knowledge date was at the latest 24 May 2016 (receipt of ACH/Maynard Marks reports) and the claim filed 9 Sep 2021 was therefore time-barred under s11 of the Limitation Act 2010.
12 Apr 2022

THE CANYON VINEYARD LIMITED v CENTRAL OTAGO DISTRICT COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 749 [12 April 2022]

Citation

[2022] NZHC 749
Court

High Court

Strike out application dismissed because the appellant did not establish it was contractually bound by clause 39; there was insufficient evidence to treat CVL as principal under common law or s182 Companies Act; factual uncertainties about the purchaser and agent relationship made the matter unsuitable for summary disposal and the appeal could not be characterised as clearly untenable.
22 May 2020

EVEREST SERVICED APARTMENTS LTD v BODY CORPORATE 511909 [2020] NZHC 1091

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1091
Court

High Court

The strike out application was dismissed because, on assumed truth of pleaded facts, the amended statement of claim was not so clearly untenable as to be incapable of success; deficiencies identified (such as specifying s9 Fair Trading Act, tightening particulars of agreement and avoiding vague 'among others' references) were remediable by amendment and did not justify striking out at this interlocutory stage.
5 Oct 2018

GREEN MEADOW HOLDINGS APS v SARGISON AND DALTON [2018] NZHC 2216

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2216
Court

High Court

The court held that creditors of the insolvent Kiwi Deposit Building Society have priority over members and that the instrument of dissolution and the contractual 'tracking' rights of Class B and D shareholders cannot defeat creditors' priority; consequently the plaintiffs' first, second, fourth and fifth causes of action (seeking priority or constructive/express trust relief) were legally untenable and struck out; the alleged mismanagement cause of action was procedurally deficient but not hopeless and plaintiffs were granted limited leave and directions to replead with full particulars and…
4 Oct 2017

HUNTER v ATTORNEY-GENERAL SUED ON BEHALF OF THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE AND THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE [2017] NZHC 2433

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2433
Court

High Court

The Court struck out causes of action 5, 6, 7 and 22 because the pleadings failed to allege essential elements: false imprisonment allegations did not plead 'total restraint'; NZBORA s22 claims lacked particulars showing a reasonable belief of not being free to leave; breach of statutory duty claims failed because statute did not evince an intention to create a private cause of action; and abuse of process/malicious-related torts where pleaded lacked particularised allegations of ulterior purpose or malice. The plaintiff is granted limited leave to replead specified causes to meet the legal s…
19 May 2017

S v POLICE [2017] NZHC 1060

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1060
Court

High Court

The Court struck out all of S's claims as clearly untenable because the warrant was facially valid, no jurisdictional or fundamental defect was pleaded or evidenced, bad faith allegations were speculative without particulars, and judicial review is not the correct forum to litigate non-fundamental challenges to searches in the context of active criminal proceedings. D's claim for arbitrary detention was not clearly untenable and may proceed if properly pleaded confined to that cause of action; most seized documents were ordered released to Police while a small subset potentially attracting pr…
21 Oct 2016

EM v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2016] NZHC 2535

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2535
Court

High Court

The court held that EM's claim was not barred by s 317 ACA 2001 because that provision bars persons who have sustained a covered personal injury from pursuing common law damages but does not extend to third parties like EM who claim distinct financial losses; further, given clause 14(f) Schedule 1 ACA 2001 expressly requires ACC to consider disruption to household family members and given the lack of direct statutory review or appeal rights for affected family members, a private cause of action for breach of statutory duty and a novel negligence duty to a primary caregiver are not so plainly…
20 Oct 2016

CROSS & ORS v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2016] NZHC 2503

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2503
Court

High Court

On the pleadings and the affidavit evidence there was a bona fide and non‑speculative basis for the plaintiffs' assertion they owned the property as trustees; disputed factual issues on ownership could not be resolved on strike‑out; pre‑issue delay alone did not justify striking out, the Council did not establish inordinate post‑issue delay or serious prejudice, and potential inability to join third parties did not constitute a misuse of process warranting strike‑out. Therefore the strike‑out application was dismissed.
11 Jul 2014

TAYLOR v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2014] NZHC 1630

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1630
Court

High Court

The High Court is not precluded in principle from making declarations of inconsistency with the NZBORA (it has jurisdiction in the strict sense), but judicial practice of comity and constitutional considerations counsel restraint; on the facts the respondents' strike out application was dismissed and the proceeding should continue with amendments to parties and pleadings.