New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fraud exception to finality

Legal area

Court

27 Apr 2017

NOTTINGHAM v THE AUCKLAND DISTRICT COURT & ORS [2017] NZHC 777

Citation

[2017] NZHC 777
Court

High Court

The statement of claim was struck out because it comprised scandalous, conclusory and unsupported allegations of fraud, perjury and conspiracy without the required specific particulars or evidential foundation to engage the fraud exception to finality, constituted an abuse of process and sought relief inappropriate to an application for judicial review, and these defects could not be cured by amendment.
19 Sept 2014

NZF MONEY LIMITED (In Receivership) v MILLAR [2014] NZHC 2273

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2273
Court

High Court

The guarantees, as executed, were separate and did not evidence a contractual agreement that one $160,000 payment discharged both; there was no arguable defence or cogent evidence of deliberate suppression amounting to fraud that would displace the final District Court judgment; s 17 relief is not available because the alleged defence/cross-claim could have been raised in the original proceeding. Therefore the bankruptcy notice cannot be set aside.
4 Mar 2014

SPURR V FARMLANDS FUEL LIMITED CA363/2013 [2014] NZCA 48

Citation

[2014] NZCA 48
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for recall is dismissed because the authority relied on (Redcliffe) was available before the original proceedings and therefore not a new intervening decision, there was no operative failure to draw relevant authority to the Court's attention, the applicant's fraud allegations are unsupported and had been previously raised, and recall cannot be used to relitigate substantive issues or substitute for appeal rights; no special reason exists to recall the judgment.
22 Feb 2013

STIASSNY & ANOR V SIEMER HC AK CIV-2005-404-1808

Citation

openlaw-00cf5369_29a1_45d7_b3ff_65b1c1cd62d1.pdf
Court

High Court

Application dismissed: the substance of the challenge had been previously determined by higher courts; the new over-charging evidence should have been raised in the separate originating proceeding, does not establish the requisite conscious and deliberate dishonesty, and would not have altered the outcome; the application constitutes an abuse of process and recall/set-aside is refused.
2 Dec 2009

THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE V HEENAN HC INV CIV 2002-425-000015

Citation

openlaw-cffce1c2_b1f4_440e_9a76_05645aa162ad.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court initially ruled that issue estoppel and abuse of process barred the defendant from asserting the 1960 trust ownership defence and limited admissible evidence to proof that the vehicles were the defendant's personal property at the bankruptcy date; however, after reading Heath J's contrary findings the judge recalled his oral judgment and did not maintain the prior finding of issue estoppel, recognizing the need to recall an unsigned judgment where a relevant authoritative decision was not previously brought to the Court's attention.

New Zealand Case Law

NOTTINGHAM v THE AUCKLAND DISTRICT COURT & ORS [2017] NZHC 777

NZF MONEY LIMITED (In Receivership) v MILLAR [2014] NZHC 2273

SPURR V FARMLANDS FUEL LIMITED CA363/2013 [2014] NZCA 48

STIASSNY & ANOR V SIEMER HC AK CIV-2005-404-1808

THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE V HEENAN HC INV CIV 2002-425-000015