New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Striking out pleadings

Legal area

Court

15 Jul 2022

SMITH v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZHC 1693

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1693
Court

High Court

All causes of action in the amended statement of claim are struck out: the proposed novel duty against the Crown is legally untenable because it is undefined, fails the incremental development test, raises insurmountable policy and indeterminacy problems, and would improperly supplant statutory/regulatory frameworks; NZBORA claims under s 8 and s 20 do not establish the necessary positive protective obligations on the pleaded facts (no real, immediate, sufficiently proximate individual risk or denial of minority cultural practice shown); Treaty-based and fiduciary claims are not tenable as st…
22 Jan 2019

BEAN v BEAN [2019] NZHC 20

Citation

[2019] NZHC 20
Court

High Court

The appeal is allowed and the Family Court application is struck out because the claimant's case is clearly untenable on the Family Protection Act: it primarily seeks to rewrite the deceased's will to reflect an asserted testamentary intention rather than to remedy a demonstrable breach of moral duty, and the claimant failed to plead or provide evidence of financial need such that relief for proper maintenance and support could be justified.
24 Sept 2015

INTERNET TRADERS LTD AND ORS v WILLIAMS AND ORS [2015] NZHC 2327

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2327
Court

High Court

The review judge set aside the Associate Judge's split trial direction because separating liability and injunctive relief would prevent defendants from properly contesting claims that require proof of causation and loss, the necessary discovery for assessing injunctive relief had been refused, and there was a real risk injunctions could be granted without evidence of actionable loss; consequently a single full trial was ordered to avoid prejudice and mismanagement.
22 Sept 2014

RAFIQ v THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2014] NZHC 2294

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2294
Court

High Court

The proceedings were struck out because, on review of the material and the plaintiff's own statements demonstrating an intention to file multiple vexatious litigations, the claims amounted to an abuse of the Court's process; the Registrar was entitled to seek a Judge's direction and allowing the proceedings to proceed would be manifestly unfair and undermine the administration of justice, requiring peremptory strike out under the Court's inherent jurisdiction.
18 Dec 2012

B AND T BLIND SPECIALISTS ROTORUA LIMITED V PEPPER HC ROT CIV-2011-463-580

Citation

openlaw-76df2a32_1cbd_4799_b3d6_09906cf82324.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its discretion to potentially admit into evidence common-bundle documents despite non-compliance with r9.14(4)-(5) by applying r9.14(6) where admitting them would not materially prejudice the plaintiff, but refused to permit the defendant to re-open his closed case to give further oral evidence on central pleaded matters because that would unjustifiably assist the unrepresented defendant and unfairly prejudice the plaintiff; assistance to lay litigants is limited and does not extend to fundamentally remaking a party's case after closure.
17 Dec 2009

MINISTER OF EDUCATION V ARGON AND ORS HC AK CIV-2008-404-004551

Citation

openlaw-15617ec7_573b_4f25_81c3_4ba1f8a4b693.pdf
Court

High Court

The strike-out applications were dismissed as premature because the amended claim is insufficiently particularised and factual disputes cannot be resolved on strike-out; however, limitation under Building Act s393 confines recoverable claims to building work carried out from midnight on 17-18 July 1998 onward (the initial day excluded), so plaintiff may only sue for acts or omissions from that time and must re-plead accordingly.
19 Nov 2008

SIEMER V FERRIER HODGSON AND STIASSNY SC 62/2008

Citation

SC 62/2008
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the matters reviewed by the Court of Appeal did not raise questions of public or general importance nor risked miscarriage of justice, and the allegation of actual or apparent bias against the judge was not made out on the evidence (the remark was ironic and there was no basis to infer impartiality was compromised).
27 Aug 2008

BARRY DEAN SEXTON V RICE CRAIG AND ANOR CA CA137/06

Citation

openlaw-fa529e5c_9a22_4e88_9eaf_26e2deb0143c.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The application was dismissed because it was brought nearly ten months after the judgment without any explanation for the delay and failed to identify any specific oversight or error; general dissatisfaction with the outcome does not justify recall.
30 Apr 2007

ALEXANDRE SAMOILOV V NICHOLA ANN BURLEY AND PATRICK CHARLES STUART CA CA250/06

Citation

openlaw-293ef821_7918_428c_a110_1636b37a2238.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the Associate Judge's strike‑out decision was an interlocutory decision dealt with in chambers under r251(1) and s26P(1) requires review in the High Court rather than appeal to the Court of Appeal.
19 Apr 2007

LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY V MEYRICK HC HAM CIV 2006-419-1706

Citation

openlaw-72b4cba0_c5f3_4dad_956e_4ec5e24a6b15.pdf
Court

High Court

The contract did not exhaust the statutory field in s 73(1); the Agency was not contractually precluded from exercising its statutory suspension power under s 73(1)(d); the effect of suspension arose from statute (s73(2) and s69(1)) and prevented provision and payment for legal aid services as of the suspension date, therefore the pleaded contract causes of action were untenable and both causes of action were struck out.