New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike out (r 15.1)

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2021

SAMY TRUSTEE LTD v PAUANUI DREAM ESTATE LTD [2021] NZHC 701

Citation

[2021] NZHC 701
Court

High Court

The strike out application was dismissed because the amended statement of claim raised reasonably arguable causes under s 174; s 174 is broadly cast and Baker v Hodder leaves open that s 174 can, in particular circumstances, reach shareholder refusals of s 129 approvals; the threshold for strike out under r 15.1 was not met and factual issues including standing should be resolved at trial.
12 Aug 2020

SEQUITUR HOTELS PTY LIMITED v SATORI HOLDINGS LIMITED [2020] NZHC 2032

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2032
Court

High Court

Service on Mr Griffiths was validly effected in New Zealand by agreement with his New Zealand solicitor; the pleaded FTA and FMCA claims against Satori are not clearly untenable on extra-territoriality grounds because it is seriously arguable Satori carried on business in New Zealand and the impugned conduct can be attributed to Satori and relates to supply of interests/financial products in New Zealand; however the FMCA/FTA causes of action against Mr Griffiths personally are struck out for lack of any pleaded or evidenced carrying on of business or residence in New Zealand and thus fall out…
17 Jun 2019

MATSUOKA v ZAMBION LTD [2019] NZHC 1365

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1365
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed because the District Court correctly concluded the proceeding was an abuse of process — in substance a collateral attack on a final Employment Court costs determination dressed in different causes of action — and that cumulative factors (relitigation, pattern of related proceedings, and disproportionality between costs and stakes) warranted striking out the claim.
6 Jun 2017

INTELACT LIMITED v FONTERRA TM LIMITED [2017] NZHC 1086

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1086
Court

High Court

The Court held the settlement agreement was a full and final settlement that discharged the plaintiffs' 2014 causes of action (an accord and satisfaction), clause 8 was an unenforceable agreement to negotiate for lack of certainty and thus could not preserve the plaintiffs' original claims, s93 of the Trade Marks Act provided a defence as to use of a registered mark, and the plaintiffs had not validly made time of the essence to cancel; accordingly the amended statement of claim was struck out and summary judgment entered for the defendants.
31 Aug 2016

REIHANA v RAKIURA TITI COMMITTEE [2016] NZHC 2048

Citation

[2016] NZAR 1491
Court

High Court

[2016] NZAR 1491
15 Feb 2016

LP v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2016] NZHC 169

Citation

[2016] NZAR 511
Court

High Court

The claim was struck out because the statement of claim disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action: the Police conducted appropriate inquiries and lawfully exercised operational discretion in assessing credibility (including relevant mental health material), and the claim was a clearly hopeless attempt to direct police investigations contrary to established principle regarding non‑interference with operational police decisions.
28 May 2012

FALOON V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC TAU CIV-2011-470-878

Citation

openlaw-be247cbc_816b_4251_8402_8f9454339dea.pdf
Court

High Court

The statement of claim was struck out and the proceeding dismissed because it disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action, was an abuse of process and the relief sought had been overtaken by events; additionally there is no requirement to have filed a statement of defence before bringing a strike out application.
10 May 2012

KARAM V FAIRFAX NEW ZEALAND LIMITED HC AK CIV-2010-404-005021

Citation

openlaw-a087ca94_fdcd_4e95_aa6b_9d993d86c055.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held that Fairfax's s 10(2)(b) honest opinion defence as amended was not plainly unsustainable and therefore should not be wholly struck out; however items 56–59 of Schedule A were struck out because they post‑dated the publications and could not support the 'generally known at the time' basis. The Court dismissed both the plaintiff's application for further discovery against Fairfax (no basis to compel additional documents) and Fairfax's application for wide particular discovery of documents relating to Schedule A on grounds of disproportionality and lack of specificity under the (…
13 Oct 2010

RICHARD JOHN CRESER V JANINE MICHELLE CRESER AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2009-091-466

Citation

openlaw-66b9ebea_43d2_4eb8_9bfe_f34789d532eb.pdf
Court

High Court

The 2010 proceedings were struck out because each cause of action was in substance identical to causes of action previously litigated and adjudicated (including a 2005 strike out), the earlier adjudications resolved the same issues, and the present claims are therefore frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process warranting strike out under r 15.1(1)(c) and (d).
16 Nov 2009

M H NATHAN AND ORS V G S SMITH AND ORS HC AK CIV 2007-404-000253

Citation

openlaw-d637e7b0_28bd_4d7f_9599_2fb0fb26a4f7.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court has jurisdiction to review that part of the Associate Judge's decision relating to the strike out application; the memorandum of transfer and notice of change of ownership sent to the defendants' solicitors constituted sufficient notice of an equitable assignment so as to entitle the named transferees to sue and to bring the proceedings within the Limitation Act period; accordingly the strike out application was properly dismissed and the review is dismissed.