New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Strike-out under high court rules r15.1

  • 8 Jul 2021

    GRANT v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZHC 1700

    Citation
    [2021] NZHC 1700
    Court
    High Court

    The Court struck out all of Ms Grant's claims except a narrowly confined claim alleging unlawful detention/mixing with sentenced prisoners while on remand because the remainder disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action or were an abuse of process by relitigating matters already decided, were jurisdictionally barred or legally untenable; the remand placement complaint was the only potentially fresh and arguable issue and plaintiff was granted leave to particularise it.

    • Police vetting disclosures
    • Privacy act jurisdiction
    • Land transport act s77 defamation allegation
    • Intrusion into seclusion
    • Criminal records (clean slate) act
    • Habeas corpus

  • 4 Dec 2020

    FIELDING v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 3194

    Citation
    [2020] NZHC 3194
    Court
    High Court

    The pleaded claim failed to disclose a reasonably arguable cause of action because misfeasance requires a particularised mental element and proof of damage which the pleadings did not allege; a claim of misfeasance against the Police as an institution is impermissible and those paragraphs were struck out; the remainder of the claim was stayed to permit properly settled amendment by a practising lawyer by a fixed date or else be struck out automatically.

    • Misfeasance in public office
    • Strike-out under high court rules r15.1
    • Special damages
    • Crown proceedings act issues
    • Accident compensation act overlap

  • 21 Nov 2016

    COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE v FAN JIANG [2016] NZHC 2782

    Citation
    [2016] NZHC 2782
    Court
    High Court

    The strike-out application was dismissed because on the pleaded material and supporting affidavits the Commissioner has established a foundation of reasonable grounds to believe the property was tainted or the respondent unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity (including alleged tax evasion exceeding the $30,000 threshold); the strike-out threshold (clear untenability or abuse) was not met and factual and legal disputes must be determined at the substantive inter partes hearing.

    • Restraining orders
    • Tainted property
    • Significant criminal activity
    • Strike-out under high court rules r15.1
    • Abuse of process
    • Tax evasion

  • 17 Jun 2014

    BURCHELL v SINGH [2014] NZHC 1353

    Citation
    [2014] NZHC 1353
    Court
    High Court

    The amended statement of claim disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action and was struck out because it failed to particularise the alleged defamatory meaning as required by s37, contained scandalous, irrelevant and prolix material and principally evidential matter, and failed to plead the tort of conspiracy with sufficient clarity or to distinguish forms of conspiracy; strike‑out was justified under r15.1(1)(a),(b) and (c).

    • Strike‑out under high court rules r15.1
    • Absolute and qualified privilege
    • Pleading sufficiency and particulars (s37 defamation act)
    • Conspiracy by lawful means v unlawful means
    • Use of evidential material in pleadings