New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike‑out

Legal area

Court

1 Dec 2023

HALSE v EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY [2023] NZCA 611

Citation

[2023] NZCA 611
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for leave to appeal is declined because no seriously arguable question of law is identified; the Employment Court correctly held s 184(1A) barred the applicant's s 194 judicial review of an ERA case management direction until the ERA has issued a determination, and the ERA has statutory jurisdiction under ss 134(2) and 161 to entertain claims against persons who aided or abetted breaches, so the strike-out was appropriate.
10 Nov 2023

In the matter of an order against TANYA FELICITY DUNSTAN [2023] NZHC 3176

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3176
Court

High Court

Because multiple civil proceedings filed and pursued by Ms Dunstan were 'totally without merit' (bound to fail) and were proliferating across jurisdictions, the Judge was satisfied the statutory grounds in s167 were met and a general order under s166 was justified; accordingly Ms Dunstan is restrained from commencing or continuing civil proceedings in senior and inferior courts without first obtaining leave of a High Court Judge for a period of three years from the date of judgment.
6 Nov 2023

KENNEDY v BODY CORPORATE 82981 [2023] NZHC 3123

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3123
Court

High Court

Leave of the Court is not required to commence a common law derivative action in the context of a body corporate governed by the Unit Titles Act; standing challenges should be addressed by strike-out, preliminary issue, or at trial rather than by a mandatory leave regime; under r 4.56(1)(b) the Court ordered joinder of Leigh Francis Burney and Diane Florence Burney as fourth and fifth defendants; the Court declined to determine standing on this interlocutory application and left procedural options open to the defendants.
5 Sept 2023

NEUTRINO TRUST LTD v HAMILTON COSMOPOLITAN CLUB INC [2023] NZHC 2475

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2475
Court

High Court

The Court held that the defendant failed to prove on summary application that none of the plaintiff's causes of action could succeed; the equitable easement claim by implied grant, the statutory claims under the Property Law Act 2007 for landlocked land and wrongly placed structures are legally tenable and raise factual issues requiring full hearing or further evidence, so the strike-out and summary judgment applications were dismissed and the proceedings allowed to continue.
31 May 2023

FLETCHER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD v CHUBB INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LTD _x000b_[2023] NZHC 943

Citation

[2023] NZHC 943
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because the meaning and application of the Insuring Clause and Exclusion 6 could not be resolved on the policy text alone; the Insurers' interpretation (that the policy does not cover voluntarily assumed contractual indemnities and that Exclusion 6 excludes liabilities arising from damage to works under construction) was reasonably arguable and resolving the dispute requires full contextual extrinsic evidence and possibly participation of SkyCity; the strike-out application was dismissed but the statement of claim was found deficient in seeking a broad declarati…
20 Apr 2023

MARK PILLAY v FAMILY COURT [2023] NZHC 848

Citation

[2023] NZHC 848
Court

High Court

Because the claims against Kannemeyer and MBIE were struck out they were successful and entitled to costs; the plaintiff provided no affidavit evidence of impecuniosity and absent exceptional circumstances the court will not decline or arbitrarily reduce costs, so scale 2B costs as claimed are awarded.
18 Apr 2023

LIANSEN MAO v HESKETH HENRY [2023] NZHC 813

Citation

[2023] NZHC 813
Court

High Court

Plaintiffs repeatedly re-filed and pursued substantially identical, previously struck-out claims; their conduct was vexatious and caused unnecessary cost and time; they unreasonably failed to accept settlement offers; accordingly the Court awarded indemnity costs to Hesketh Henry and Ara Kim/Cooper & Co and awarded increased costs (100% uplift) to Hyun Bin Kim and Duk Young Lee.
10 Mar 2023

SLAVICH v WELLINGTON DISTRICT COURT [2023] NZHC 472

Citation

[2023] NZHC 472
Court

High Court

The Court held there were no special reasons to depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event, awarded costs to the Attorney-General for the successful strike-out, and ordered costs on the 1A scale sought; specifically $5,247.00 costs and $530.43 disbursements, because the plaintiff did not raise matters falling within the exceptions and the award was consistent with predictable and expeditious costs practice.
10 Mar 2023

SLAVICH v WELLINGTON DISTRICT COURT [2023] NZHC 472

Citation

SLAVICH v WELLINGTON DISTRICT COURT [2023] NZHC 472
Court

High Court

Absent any of the limited exceptions in r 14.7, costs follow the event; the plaintiff did not establish any special or exceptional grounds to refuse or reduce costs, and therefore the Court ordered costs to the Attorney-General on a 1A scale for the successful strike-out application.
19 Oct 2022

GWIZO v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZHC 2717

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2717
Court

High Court

The Tribunal correctly found the proceeding was an abuse of process because the appellant consistently and deliberately failed to comply with an unambiguous direction to file an amended statement of claim over a period exceeding 15 months, demonstrating lack of intention to pursue the claim conscientiously; in all the circumstances the Tribunal properly exercised its discretion to strike out the proceeding.