New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Collateral attack

Legal area

Court

23 Feb 2023

ROBT JONES 151 LIMITED v HENRY [2023] NZHC 280

Citation

[2023] NZHC 280
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify an arguable error of law or a matter of sufficient public importance; the discovery application improperly sought to collaterally attack a consent judgment rather than address solvency; finality of litigation and the debtor's prior opportunities to challenge the judgment made discovery inappropriate and the interests of justice did not support granting leave.
17 Nov 2022

S v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZHC 2992

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2992
Court

High Court

The proceedings were struck out as an abuse of process because the applicant repeatedly seeks to relitigate issues (committal admissibility, medical evidence, trial counsel errors) that have been finally determined by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court; any alleged committal defects were peripheral or cured by the trial and could not have affected the outcome, so the claim discloses no reasonably arguable cause of action.
18 Nov 2021

HONG v NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2021] NZCA 611

Citation

[2021] NZCA 611
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held causes of action 1, 2 and 3(1) merely re-litigated issues finally determined by the High Court and therefore constituted an impermissible collateral attack/abuse of process and were correctly struck out; cause of action 3(2) was deficient in pleading but raised matters beyond the prior appeal and was allowed to be re-pleaded within one month; the High Court costs judgment was correctly made and was upheld.
20 Oct 2021

SIEMER v AUCKLAND HIGH COURT [2021] NZCA 550

Citation

[2021] NZCA 550
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for recall and for correction under the slip rule is declined because the appeal was an abuse of process constituting a collateral attack on an earlier decision; the applicant's contrary assertion was disingenuous and did not provide the exceptional grounds required for recall or for slip‑rule correction.
24 Sept 2021

SIEMER v AUCKLAND HIGH COURT [2021] NZCA 487

Citation

[2021] NZCA 487
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was struck out because it was an abuse of process and a collateral attack on prior decisions; r 44A(1)(c) authorises strike out of frivolous or vexatious appeals and the High Court cannot judicially review its own decisions, so the strike-out was justified.
27 Aug 2020

BOON GUNN HONG v NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2020] NZHC 2205

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2205
Court

High Court

Causes of action 1, 2 and 3(1) are struck out as they amount to collateral attacks on the High Court's appellate judgment and therefore disclose no reasonably arguable cause of action and are an abuse of process/vexatious; cause 3(2) (systemic discrimination/bad faith) is insufficiently particularised but not a total write-off, plaintiff given leave to re-plead limited to specified directions; costs awarded to second respondents on a 2B basis (direction given for memoranda timetable).
11 Mar 2020

HU v CHEN & ORS [2020] NZHC 485

Citation

[2020] NZHC 485
Court

High Court

The statement of claim was struck out because it amounted to an abuse of process by seeking to collaterally attack and relitigate factual findings and determinations already made by Van Bohemen J in the earlier recall judgments, and because the fraud allegations lacked the required particularity and prima facie evidential foundation; therefore the claim disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action and was struck out with costs to defendants on a 2B basis plus disbursements.
28 Aug 2018

HETARAKA v MORRIS [2018] NZCA 329

Citation

[2018] NZCA 329
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time granted because the applicant filed the appeal documents within time via a process server, the documents were misplaced by the Court through no fault of the applicant, the applicant promptly sought relief, and the interests of justice required the appeal be decided on its merits rather than be defeated by an administrative error.
28 Mar 2018

NOTTINGHAM v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2018] NZCA 75

Citation

[2018] NZCA 75
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time was refused because the six month delay lacked credible explanation, the judicial review was a collateral attack on final criminal proceedings and the proposed appeal was effectively hopeless; in the interests of justice the discretion to extend time must be declined.
8 Feb 2018

KARL TEANGIOTAU NUKU v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2018] NZSC 7

Citation

[2018] NZSC 7
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal dismissed because the applicant failed to establish an arguable ground of public or general importance or an appearance of miscarriage of justice; the trial judge was not required to call the prosecutor before dismissing the s 347 application and the absence of formal reasons was not prejudicial because the basis for refusal was evident and the Court of Appeal's finding of sufficient evidence removed any prejudice.