New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Specified acts

Legal area

Court

26 Mar 2021

MALCOURONNE v O’NEILL [2021] NZHC 641

Citation

[2021] NZHC 641
Court

High Court

The High Court allowed the appeal in part: it concluded that the District Court was correct to find the respondent's conduct established a pattern of harassment and to make a restraining order in her case, but the acts attributed to the appellant were isolated, contextual or undertaken for a lawful purpose and did not form a pattern amounting to harassment requiring a restraining order; accordingly the restraining order against the appellant was set aside and costs issues were remitted/awarded as stated.
8 Jun 2020

TRANTER v KEMP [2020] NZHC 1257

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1257
Court

High Court

The Court held the Harassment Act restraining order was unnecessary and quashed because the conduct at issue was addressed by tailored HDCA orders; the HDCA takedown/prohibition was justified and confirmed in modified form after applying s19(5) factors (public interest, purpose, spread, truth, harm, defendant's conduct), finding the publications excessive, not in the public interest and likely to cause harm; consequential tailored prohibitions were imposed until 31 December 2020.
7 Dec 2018

AJANI v THOMAES [2018] NZHC 3218

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3218
Court

High Court

Although the Judge found certain specified acts proven, the Court concluded those acts would not cause distress to a reasonable person in the applicant's particular circumstances because the applicant deliberately provoked the respondent and could foresee the respondent's reactions; accordingly the degree of distress did not justify a restraining order and such an order was not necessary to protect the applicant, so the appeal is dismissed.
29 Aug 2016

WAXMAN v CROUCH [2016] NZHC 2004

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2004
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the District Court's refusal to grant a restraining order because the respondent's conduct, viewed in context, did not satisfy the statutory definition of harassment (no pattern of at least two specified acts causing a reasonable fear for safety) and would not cause a reasonable person in the applicant's circumstances sufficient distress to justify a restraining order; however, the finding that the applicant's proceedings were vexatious and the consequent award of indemnity costs was quashed because the applicant honestly believed she was being harassed and did not exhib…
29 Jul 2014

N R v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2014] NZHC 1767

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1767
Court

High Court

Court found sufficient specified acts proved (loitering outside workplace, targeted emails including insulting material, hiring a private investigator and direct phone contact) to constitute a pattern of harassment under s 3 and to satisfy s 16 distress and necessity requirements; the five year restraining order was excessive and unjustified, and the indemnity costs order should be set aside and replaced with scale costs for a category 2 District Court proceeding; judicial review of interlocutory rulings was moot; legal demands/communications and privilege issues require fuller argument and a…
16 Apr 2014

CLARKE v WATTS [2014] NZHC 822

Citation

[2014] NZHC 822
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the District Court: previous specified acts, together with recent conduct and an ongoing, demonstrated grudge, established a pattern that would cause distress to the applicant in his particular circumstances and made a restraining order necessary to protect him from further harassment; therefore the appeal was dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

MALCOURONNE v O’NEILL [2021] NZHC 641

TRANTER v KEMP [2020] NZHC 1257

AJANI v THOMAES [2018] NZHC 3218

WAXMAN v CROUCH [2016] NZHC 2004

N R v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2014] NZHC 1767

CLARKE v WATTS [2014] NZHC 822