New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike out of pleadings

Legal area

Court

26 Oct 2023

RUSHTON v GUTHRIE [2023] NZHC 2983

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2983
Court

High Court

The claim to remove the executors discloses no arguable cause of action and is struck out because administration is nearly complete, allegations of conflict and misconduct are unsupported and removal would be prejudicial and unnecessary; the reimbursement claim is defectively pleaded but may be repleaded; under Property Law Act s 339 and having regard to s 342 factors the only realistic and just outcome is an order for sale of the Forbury Road property to break the deadlock and protect residuary beneficiaries.
16 Apr 2019

STAPLES & ANOR v FREEMAN & ORS [2019] NZHC 839 .

Citation

[2019] NZHC 839
Court

High Court

The court held media defendants must comply with the specificity requirements of Associate Judge Matthews' orders and the High Court Rules: documents in Part 4 cannot be grouped by vague themes and must be described in accordance with Part 2 of Schedule 9 unless a proper same-nature grouping applies; because defendants asserted inability to recall details they must file further sworn affidavits stating what they can recall (senders/recipients/authors/identities of proceedings) and confirm inability to recover deleted electronic records; particulars of publication facts were largely sufficient…
19 Mar 2015

NR v MR CA532/2014 [2015] NZCA 81

Citation

[2015] NZCA 81
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was refused because the High Court correctly and afresh concluded the second amended statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, the pleaded causes were untenable or barred (absolute or qualified privilege, abuse of process, statutory defences under the Prostitution Reform Act, failure to mitigate), there was no appearance or actuality of bias, and no issue of sufficient public or private importance justified further appeal.
4 Apr 2014

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v MICHAEL RICHARD HERON [2014] NZSC 35

Citation

(2014) 21 PRNZ 818
Court

Supreme Court

The Associate Judge's strike out decision was made in chambers (described as 'open court for chambers'), therefore no right of appeal to the Court of Appeal under s 26P(2) arises; the correct route is an application to the High Court for review under s 26P(1); the bias allegations failed to satisfy the Saxmere test and were dismissed.
2 Dec 2009

LUCAS AND ANOR V PETERSON PORTABLE SAWING SYSTEMS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2001-404-3668

Citation

openlaw-f6f17b14_fbee_48c0_a4d4_95c9c6ead048.pdf
Court

High Court

Section 74 is directed to groundless threats of proceedings and is not designed to compensate a party for losses resulting from actual litigation once proceedings have been issued; the second defendant's pleaded counterclaim alleging both threats and the bringing of proceedings is mismatched to s74 and discloses no tenable cause of action and is therefore struck out; the second defendant is, however, entitled to reasonable disbursements of $2,419; costs otherwise lie where they fall and no party-party costs are awarded to the self-represented defendant.
19 Mar 2009

MOODIE V ELLIS & ORS HC WN CIV 2007-485-002212

Citation

openlaw-775c897b_32ba_45b3_a08d_845f5ec0c19e.pdf
Court

High Court

Plaintiff must plead precise defamatory words or facts establishing individual defendants as publishers and must link each alleged meaning to specific words or identified combinations of words; particulars of special damages must be pleaded with sufficient particularity; material subject to absolute privilege (statements made in court proceedings) is irrelevant and struck out. Plaintiff granted leave to amend within specified timeframe but security for costs ordered on balance of justice where there was reason to believe plaintiff could not pay.
20 Dec 2007

WINSTON RAYMOND PETERS V TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND AND ORS HC AK CIV 2004-404-003311

Citation

openlaw-5225f1cb_7d25_426c_b699_ae534489bb68.pdf
Court

High Court

The review is dismissed. The Associate Judge was correct to conclude TVNZ's broadcast was not asserting that Mr Peters was guilty of serious misconduct or contempt, but the broadcast was capable of conveying that TVNZ was asserting there were grounds for suspicion that Mr Peters may have been involved in misconduct; the pleading also disclosed a viable separate cause of action for republication by Dossetter of her affidavit outside Parliament. The strike-out of the entire cause of action against Mr Carter was upheld because his words were not capable of meaning there was cause for suspicion t…
26 Jul 2005

WESTON WARD & LASCELLES V PRIMOSSO HOLDINGS LIMITED AND CAPITAL ACCEPTANCE LIMITED AND ORS CA CA152/04

Citation

openlaw-87ee13bc_470b_471e_8e5b_7035dcb41840.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was allowed and the amended statement of claim was struck out because the pleaded cause of action amounted to alleging dishonest conduct which must be pleaded as deceit; the court rejected the proposed extension of negligence to impose on solicitors (and other agents) a duty to prevent clients' deceit of third parties and permitted repleading in deceit within a limited time.