New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Vexatious litigant order

Legal area

Court

11 Mar 2022

SIEMER v LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER [2022] NZHC 440 [REISSUED 28 April 2022]

Citation

[2022] NZHC 440
Court

High Court

Leave to file a statement of defence was dismissed because the second respondent failed to demonstrate a substantial defence or reasonably explain the prolonged delay, provided no affidavit or draft defence, and the interests of justice favoured allowing the judicial review to proceed as listed; the applicant would not suffer irreparable prejudice from proceeding without the belated defence and the balance of justice did not support granting leave.
16 Jun 2021

RAZDAN RAFIQ v ATTORNEY_x001e_GENERAL [2021] NZSC 65

Citation

[2021] NZSC 65
Court

Supreme Court

The application for an extension of time was dismissed because the applicant provided no adequate explanation for the long delay, the proposed appeal lacked merit and would inevitably fail given the uncontested factual basis that justified the s88B vexatious litigant order, and there was no appearance of miscarriage of justice; costs of $1,500 were awarded to the respondent.
27 May 2015

ATTORNEY-GENERAL v RAFIQ [2015] NZHC 1153

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1153
Court

High Court

Because the respondent had persistently and without reasonable ground instituted vexatious legal proceedings in multiple courts and tribunals, and because he did not dispute the allegations and consented to the order, the Court granted an order under s 88B requiring leave to institute or continue civil proceedings.
5 Jun 2014

SIEMER v STIASSNY [2014] NZHC 1272

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1272
Court

High Court

Leave was refused because the proposed proceedings arise directly from the same dispute previously litigated, attempt to relitigate issues already finally determined, lack a prima facie case and therefore constitute an abuse of process falling within the existing s 88B restriction on the plaintiff.
9 Sept 2013

JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH v JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER [2013] NZHC 2338

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2338
Court

High Court

Because both proceedings existed when the Full Court declared the applicant a vexatious litigant and directed that no civil proceeding instituted by him be continued without leave, and because the applicant had not obtained leave in one matter and had leave refused in the other, the Registrar was correct to refuse to receive the filings and the review is dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

SIEMER v LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER [2022] NZHC 440 [REISSUED 28 April 2022]

RAZDAN RAFIQ v ATTORNEY_x001e_GENERAL [2021] NZSC 65

ATTORNEY-GENERAL v RAFIQ [2015] NZHC 1153

SIEMER v STIASSNY [2014] NZHC 1272

JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH v JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER [2013] NZHC 2338