New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Frivolous and vexatious pleadings

  • 12 Feb 2021

    BARTON v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & ORS [2021] NZHC 152

    Citation
    [2021] NZHC 152
    Court
    High Court

    Interim relief was refused because the application lacked evidential support and particulars, the alleged misconduct charge was minor and heard over multiple dates so ambush was unlikely, there was no serious question to be tried or clear prejudice on available evidence, public interest and balance of convenience favoured allowing Corrections to proceed and report to the Parole Board, and the pleadings as pleaded were frivolous or vexatious; accordingly the interim application was dismissed and the proceedings were stayed pending an approved amended pleading to be filed by 31 May 2021 or else…

    • Interim relief
    • Stay
    • Misconduct hearing
    • Parole reports
    • Public service immunity
    • Frivolous and vexatious pleadings

  • 17 Jun 2011

    FRANCISC CATALIN DELIU V BOON GUNN HONG HC AK CIV-2010-404-006349

    Citation
    openlaw-8a6c9438_825e_41e1_b156_915e561aaa90.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The Court struck out the claim and counterclaim because the proceedings were frivolous and an abuse of court process under r 15.1 and the Court's inherent jurisdiction: the disputes were petty personal attacks between lawyers, lacked the serious protectable interests tort law addresses, and did not justify continued use of court resources even if parts of some causes might be tenuously arguable.

    • Strike out under r 15.1
    • Frivolous and vexatious pleadings
    • Absolute privilege (s14 defamation act)
    • Malicious falsehood
    • Availability of malicious prosecution for civil claims

  • 17 Jul 2007

    GIBSON AND ANOR V FISHER AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-103

    Citation
    openlaw-b270cb62_f1d7_4a11_a54f_87898f33a7f6.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The claim against the sixth defendant was vexatious, frivolous and improperly made within the meaning of r 48C(4)(a); impecuniosity or pending legal aid does not preclude an indemnity costs order; however proof of actual costs is required by affidavit before a final costs award is made, so the court ordered an affidavit timetable and further hearing to determine costs.

    • Indemnity costs
    • Frivolous and vexatious pleadings
    • Discontinuance
    • High court rules r 48c
    • Costs on 2b scale