18 Jul 2023
The application to remove counsel was declined because the applicant failed to produce sufficient evidence to meet the high threshold for disqualification; the jurisdiction is sparingly exercised and allegations were unsupported, making disqualification inappropriate.
22 Jun 2023
The Court ordered security for costs because on the evidence the plaintiff is impecunious, his impecuniosity was not shown to result from the defendants' conduct, the proceedings and the summary judgment application have little merit or prospect of success, and on balance it was just to require security; quantum set at $8,000 per defendant for the summary judgment stage and $35,000 total for the first defendant to be paid in tranches ($8,000 immediate, $8,000 following summary judgment if unsuccessful, $19,000 on setting down for trial).
19 Jun 2023
The Court struck out the entire proceeding because the statement of claim failed to plead the elements of deceit, fraud, conspiracy or knowing assistance with the required particularity and on its face relied on untenable factual assertions inconsistent with the undisputed record; the pleadings were frivolous/vexatious and an abuse of process as collateral attacks on prior ERA and Employment Court determinations; alternatively summary judgment would have been entered; an extended order under s166 was justified because the plaintiff had brought at least two totally without merit proceedings an…
24 Mar 2023
Two proceedings commenced by the respondent (the High Court Companies Act claim and the Family Court personal property claim) were bound to fail and therefore totally without merit; the protection order variation was interlocutory but also premature and without merit; the Court exercised its discretion under s166 to make an extended restraint order prohibiting the respondent from commencing or continuing civil proceedings concerning the relationship without leave for three years, but excluded applications under the Family Violence Act; suppression and costs ordered.
21 Feb 2023
The statement of claim disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action and was an abuse of process; the District Court correctly applied s26(3)(a) and reasonably concluded there was insufficient evidence, on a prima facie basis, that the proposed defendant had the required intent to pervert the course of justice, so the charging document was correctly rejected and the judicial review proceeding is struck out and dismissed.
8 Feb 2023
The Minister's decision was unlawful and is quashed because it rested on insufficient material — the mere facts of recent vexatious litigant status and bankruptcy without adequate consideration of the surrounding circumstances did not satisfy the statutory requirement to assess good character under the Citizenship Act 1977; there is no basis for damages under the Bill of Rights and no basis to order the Minister to grant citizenship, but applicant may re-apply and fees will be waived.
18 Nov 2022
The application for leave failed the statutory threshold because it raised no matter of public importance and presented no real risk of miscarriage of justice; the Court correctly required security for costs, declined to waive it given the vexatious and unmeritorious nature of the proposed appeal, and dismissed the leave application and ordered costs when security was not provided.
29 Jun 2022
The Airport proceeding (CIV-2022-404-00365) disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was plainly an abuse of process under r5.35B and is therefore struck out (including the interlocutory summary judgment application as vexatious); the judicial review against the Secretary for Internal Affairs (CIV-2022-404-00355) alleging unlawful reliance on vexatious litigant status for a citizenship refusal is not plainly an abuse and is to be accepted for filing and processed in the ordinary way.
10 Jun 2022
The Registrar did not err: the information sought was publicly available via the Courts website or constituted a global index not required to be reproduced, the applicant was not a party to Greer v Smith, and the applications were vexatious and barred by the Court's prior 2016 direction; accordingly the review applications are dismissed.
5 May 2022
The Court refused to strike out the Attorney-General's application for abuse/duplication and ordered consolidation with Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court CIV-2021-485-177 and transfer to the Wellington Registry because common questions of law and fact and efficiency justified consolidation; documents and reasons for judgment in the Attorney-General's bundle that are judgments or reasons from earlier proceedings involving third parties were inadmissible to prove facts here by operation of s50 and/or excluded as hearsay or opinion (ss17,23) or otherwise irrelevant or prejudicial; certain…