New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Recall of judgments

Legal area

Court

24 Nov 2023

EA v RENNIE COX LAWYERS [2023] NZHC 3370

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3370
Court

High Court

The statement of claim was properly treated as filed and served because it was received by the correct District Court and the parties despite use of a case management email address in the COVID context; in any event, any technical irregularity could be cured under r 1.10/1.18 of the District Court Rules 2009 given there was no prejudice and exceptional circumstances; the recall application was an inappropriate vehicle for a de facto appeal and should not have been used to re-litigate the filing issue; the statement of claim did not introduce a new cause of action; accordingly the appellant's…
27 Oct 2022

SIEMER v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZHC 2789

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2789
Court

High Court

The plaintiff's amended statement of claim is struck out because it discloses no reasonably arguable cause of action: judicial immunity and the principles in Attorney-General v Chapman bar claims for compensation or declaratory relief against the Crown for judicial acts; s6(5) of the Crown Proceedings Act bars tort claims in connection with judicial process; and the claim amounts to an impermissible collateral attack on final Supreme Court decisions which the High Court lacks jurisdiction to review.
10 Aug 2022

DELIU v THE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE AND ANOR [2022] NZHC 1972

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1972
Court

High Court

The Court declined to invite or compel the judge to provide the disclosure sought because (1) it is not established the Court can routinely compel a judicial officer to disclose; (2) even if such power exists it should only be exercised where there are reasonable evidential grounds to justify further inquiry; and (3) the applicant failed to show reasonable grounds that the judge's prior tribunal membership, professional appointments, conference participation or being photographed with counsel gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias or warranted compelled disclosure, particularly given…
10 Nov 2021

PRESCOTT v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZCA 586

Citation

[2021] NZCA 586
Court

Court of Appeal

Although the applicant's delay was short, the application for extension was declined because the underlying judicial review proceedings were correctly struck out as an abuse of process, there was no reasonably arguable point of law or other public or private reason to revive them, and therefore extension to pursue leave to appeal would be futile.
30 Jun 2017

CRESER v JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER [2017] NZHC 1486

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1486
Court

High Court

The statement of claim was struck out because the Commissioner would be required to assess and thus effectively challenge the correctness of judicial decisions in determining whether the Supreme Court's characterisation of proceedings breached the Public Records Act; that inquiry is outside the Commissioner's jurisdiction and therefore the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action.
5 Sept 2016

PETER ANTHONY WILLIAMS v TREVOR NELSON CAMERON [2016] NZSC 119

Citation

[2016] NZSC 119
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the requirements of s 13 were not met: the proposed appeal raised no matter of general or public importance, there was no risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice given prior adverse findings rejecting the alleged misconduct and the emails' peripheral relevance, and the Court of Appeal properly applied orthodox interests of justice principles in refusing the extension of time.
27 Mar 2013

ATTORNEY-GENERAL V SLAVICH HC AK CIV-2012-404-6353

Citation

openlaw-9bbe059c_a845_4100_9242_3da1177c73af.pdf
Court

High Court

Following final appellate treatment of respondent's criminal conviction, respondent instituted a sustained pattern of baseless civil proceedings, private prosecutions and repeated recall applications that constituted persistent, scandalous and abusive litigation without reasonable grounds; accordingly the Court granted an order under s88B restraining the institution or continuation of civil proceedings by respondent without leave.
27 Jun 2012

SIEMER V JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER & ORS HC AK CIV-2012-404-0646

Citation

openlaw-d561579f_5e76_457b_8ea6_b15308959ea4.pdf
Court

High Court

The Commissioner correctly concluded that the complaints purported to call into question the legality or correctness of Supreme Court decisions; such matters fall outside his statutory function under s8(2) and, accordingly, the complaints met the mandatory grounds for dismissal under s16. The Commissioner fulfilled the s15 preliminary examination requirement by considering the written complaints and materials. Because the plaintiff had no arguable cause of action, summary judgment for the defendants was appropriate.