New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike out for no reasonably arguable cause

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2020

O’NEILL v BRIDGMAN [2020] NZCA 460

Citation

[2020] NZCA 460
Court

Court of Appeal

The statement of claim was struck out because it was an abuse of process and disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action: the pleadings lacked required particularity and factual basis for serious allegations, amounted to a collateral attack on judicial decisions, and there is no statutory or implied power permitting the executive respondents to investigate or discipline court officers for decisions made in the exercise of judicial functions; appropriate remedies lie under r2.11 and the court's inherent jurisdiction, not by the executive.
19 Jul 2019

SINGH v BOUTIQUE BODY CORPORATES LIMITED [2019] NZHC 1707

Citation

(2019) 20 NZCPR 297
Court

High Court

The court struck out the negligence claims against Boutique Body Corporates Ltd and struck paragraphs [33](b),(33)(c) and [34] against the committee members because the amended pleading failed to allege an assumption of personal responsibility or sufficient proximity to found a duty of care to the individual owner beyond duties owed to the body corporate, and insofar as the committee allegations sought to relitigate matters already determined they amounted to an abuse of process; however claims concerning failure to provide reports under the s74 scheme remain live against the body corporate/c…
2 May 2017

JAQUES v MAIN & OR [2017] NZHC 857

Citation

[2017] NZHC 857
Court

High Court

Clause 2 of the settlement agreement, which provided for $4,000 plus GST per week to accrue, is a penalty provision and unenforceable; pleadings relying on clause 2 are struck out, leaving only the $30,000 debt which is within District Court jurisdiction and should be transferred unless settled; the proceeding is not struck out for failure to pay security for costs because non-compliance was not deliberate and prejudice is addressed by costs; indemnity costs awarded to defendants for unreasonable conduct by plaintiff.
9 Nov 2016

SATHYAN v POLICE COMMISSIONER OF WELLINGTON [2016] NZCA 532

Citation

[2016] NZCA 532
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time was declined because the applicant filed the appeal about five months late and the proposed appeal had no realistic prospect of success: established law bars courts from directing the Commissioner on investigation or resource allocation and the statement of claim disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action, so it was not in the interests of justice to extend time.
2 Aug 2012

EASTON v GOVERNOR-GENERAL SC 48/2012

Citation

SC 48/2012
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave because the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success, did not raise a matter of general or public importance and would not prevent a substantial miscarriage of justice; accordingly it was not necessary in the interests of justice for the Court to hear the appeal and costs were awarded to the respondent.

New Zealand Case Law

O’NEILL v BRIDGMAN [2020] NZCA 460

SINGH v BOUTIQUE BODY CORPORATES LIMITED [2019] NZHC 1707

JAQUES v MAIN & OR [2017] NZHC 857

SATHYAN v POLICE COMMISSIONER OF WELLINGTON [2016] NZCA 532

EASTON v GOVERNOR-GENERAL SC 48/2012