New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike out applications

Legal area

Court

31 Oct 2023

MASTERS v MASTERS [2023] NZHC 3027

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3027
Court

High Court

Court found many causes of action against Arrowmasters and the Ennismore Trust redundant because Arrowmasters became a debtor to Sylvania Trust and Masters and its net sale proceeds will be distributed to creditors; struck out specific causes pleaded without proper particulars or against incorrect defendants (notably the 17th and 18th causes and others), ordered the fourth defendant removed from proceedings, required repleading of claims under s 44 against the fifth defendant with particulars, struck out causes dependent on resulting trust where law precludes automatic relief from undervalue…
20 Oct 2023

RED STAG TIMBER LTD v JUKEN NZ LTD [2023] NZHC 2947

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2947
Court

High Court

The Court held that by reason of the Court of Appeal's order Red Stag cannot pursue declarations or other relief based on JNL's representations or conduct prior to December 2012 (such pleadings are struck out); however the challenged new particulars (para 39 and the 'corrective disclosure' pleading) do not amount to a fresh cause of action and may stand limited to post-December 2012 conduct; the 7ASOC must be amended to confine substantive relief and particulars to conduct from December 2012 and to remove any claim for declarations based on pre-December 2012 conduct.
10 Oct 2023

ROEBUCK v LIDDLE [2023] NZHC 2841

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2841
Court

High Court

The presumption in r 15.23 applies to the plaintiffs' discontinuance of their interlocutory applications; the third defendant is entitled to costs on a 2B scale and recoverable disbursements. The threshold for increased costs (lack of merit or unreasonable rejection of Calderbank offers) was not met given absence of a definitive judgment and timing of supplementary discovery, so uplift and indemnity costs are refused. The court allowed $21,271 costs and $7,494 disbursements to the third defendant.
17 Feb 2023

ORION MARINE LIMITED v SEALEGS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [2023] NZHC 214

Citation

[2023] NZHC 214
Court

High Court

The application for leave to appeal was declined because the Judge correctly concluded on the facts that the Applicants had not established abuse of process: although Sealegs' patent claim could have been brought with the copyright claim, there was no clear abandonment or deliberate misleading, the patent-based defences and counterclaim were permissible (the defences being hypothetical in relation to damages on the undertaking), and the interests of justice did not justify further delay by granting leave.
4 Feb 2022

RED STAG TIMBER LTD v JUKEN NEW ZEALAND LTD [2022] NZHC 103

Citation

[2022] NZHC 103
Court

High Court

On the facts and applying the essential difference test, the Court held on balance that the claim for representations made prior to December 2012 was not essentially different from the later claim because the core allegation (use of boron treatment that was non-compliant) was the same across periods; therefore the earlier claim retained the knowledge date of 17 November 2014 for limitation purposes and was not susceptible on the pleaded material to summary dismissal on limitation grounds. However the limitation point raised an arguable error of law warranting leave to appeal; JNL was granted…
30 Jul 2021

NOTTINGHAM v THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY [2021] NZCA 357

Citation

[2021] NZCA 357
Court

Court of Appeal

Rule 43(1) does not apply to cross-appeals; failure to pay security for costs does not automatically deem an appeal abandoned because r 37 provides the mechanism for consequences and strike out requires an interlocutory application or court initiative; because security for the cross-appeal was paid before the appellants' interlocutory application was effectively before the Court, striking out was inappropriate and the cross-appeal remains on foot.
21 Apr 2021

THE VINTAGE AVIATOR LIMITED v DEMARCO [2021] NZHC 847

Citation

[2021] NZHC 847
Court

High Court

The Court struck out parts of the defendants' pleadings that directly contradicted factual determinations implicit in the jury verdicts under s47 Evidence Act 2006, and struck out multiple counterclaims alleging economic torts for failure to plead the essential elements of those torts as reasonably arguable causes of action; the Court declined to strike out company defences where solicitors later adopted them and entered summary judgment for the plaintiffs on the defendant's second counterclaim for breach of contract; discovery and a strict pre-trial timetable were ordered.
30 Jul 2020

PRESCOTT v THOMPSON NO 3 [2020] NZHC 1858

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1858
Court

High Court

The applicant's judicial review failed and his conduct—repeated meritless strike out applications and unsubstantiated bias allegations—unnecessarily increased the respondent's costs; invocation of the Bill of Rights Act did not preclude a costs order; accordingly costs are awarded to the first respondent against the applicant on a 2B scale with a 25% uplift.
31 Oct 2019

DIAMOND LASER MEDISPA TAUPO LIMITED v THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2019] NZHC 2809

Citation

(2019)17 NZELR 86
Court

High Court

The High Court held that the Human Rights Review Tribunal does have jurisdiction to hear unlawful discrimination claims arising from pregnancy even if some elements could amount to a parental leave complaint; the Parental Leave Act does not expressly or clearly oust the Tribunal's jurisdiction, s58 is permissive ('may refer') and there are no express exclusion or ouster clauses; therefore the Tribunal did not err or act ultra vires in refusing to strike out the claim.
2 Sept 2019

HOUGHTON v SAUNDERS & ORS [2019] NZCA 404

Citation

[2019] NZCA 404
Court

Court of Appeal

s63(1) is a broad, discretionary provision capable of applying to civil claims under s56(1); s63 is distinct from and not co-extensive with the s56(3)(c) due diligence defence; the Supreme Court did not determine availability of s63 and factual issues remain for stage two, so strike out of the s63 issue was inappropriate.