New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Vexatious litigation

Legal area

Court

10 Nov 2023

In the matter of an order against TANYA FELICITY DUNSTAN [2023] NZHC 3176

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3176
Court

High Court

Because multiple civil proceedings filed and pursued by Ms Dunstan were 'totally without merit' (bound to fail) and were proliferating across jurisdictions, the Judge was satisfied the statutory grounds in s167 were met and a general order under s166 was justified; accordingly Ms Dunstan is restrained from commencing or continuing civil proceedings in senior and inferior courts without first obtaining leave of a High Court Judge for a period of three years from the date of judgment.
21 Jul 2023

D v RMC [2023] NZHC 1931

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1931
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was declined because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error in the High Court's interlocutory decision; the underlying tort claim had already been considered by the Court of Appeal and found to be untenable and apparently vexatious, making lifting the stay pointless and an abuse of process; granting leave would not serve the interests of justice.
9 Jun 2023

D v RMC [2023] NZHC 1440

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1440
Court

High Court

The stay remains because the Court of Appeal has concluded the tort claim against court‑appointed counsel is untenable and appears vexatious, and the proceeding constitutes impermissible relitigation and abuse of process; accordingly lifting the stay would be pointless and the application to lift the stay is dismissed.
4 Apr 2023

YOUNG v ROSS (NO. 3) (COSTS) [2023] NZHC 747

Citation

[2023] NZHC 747
Court

High Court

Award full costs on a 2B scale including a second memorandum and apply a 30% uplift to all steps because the appellants' claims lacked merit, were pursued despite prior adverse decisions and included vexatious and scandalous allegations; prior unrelated costs agreement was irrelevant.
21 Mar 2023

MILLS v DALZELL [2023] NZCA 68

Citation

[2023] NZCA 68
Court

Court of Appeal

The Deputy Registrar correctly applied the Reekie principles and did not err in declining to dispense with security for costs because the mortgage/caveat was not an adequate substitute due to enforcement costs and delay, the appellants were not claiming impecuniosity and had realisable assets, and the appeal appeared unlikely to succeed; accordingly the review was declined and increased security for costs was required.
17 Nov 2022

DFT v RMC [2022] NZCA 562

Citation

[2022] NZCA 562
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for extension of time was refused because the proposed appeals are hopeless and vexatious: the tort claims are legally untenable (lawyer for children owes duties to court/children not the parent; judicial immunity bars claims against a judge and prevents state vicarious liability), the applicant had previously allowed a prior appeal to be deemed abandoned and sought effectively a collateral attack with no material change, and the applicant demonstrated neither ability nor willingness to provide security for costs, so granting an extension would be futile and an abuse of proces…
31 May 2021

LIANSEN MAO v INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED [2021] NZSC 53

Citation

[2021] NZSC 53
Court

Supreme Court

Applying settled principles for security for costs, the applicant failed to show public or general commercial importance or any appearance of miscarriage of justice; given the Bank's position that frozen assets are insufficient and the applicant's vexatious conduct, it was proper to refuse dispensation and to dismiss the leave application.
7 Dec 2020

PRASAD v INDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LTD [2020] NZCA 628

Citation

[2020] NZCA 628
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was struck out because the proceedings constituted an abuse of process — they sought to relitigate issues of copyright ownership and infringement that had already been finally determined with appeal rights exhausted, and therefore were frivolous and vexatious; consequently the Registry was ordered not to accept filings from the appellant without prior judicial leave.
27 Jul 2020

PATERSON v THE REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF LAND [2020] NZHC 1824

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1824
Court

High Court

Applying r 15.23 the court concluded the presumption in favour of awarding costs to defendants was not displaced; the Registrar-General was awarded costs calculated on category 2B totalling $6,626.91; the second to fifth defendants were awarded costs on the same category 2B scale but no uplift or indemnity because the proceedings were discontinued at an early stage and the Judge was not satisfied the plaintiff's conduct warranted increased or indemnity costs.
23 Jun 2020

BURGOYNE v NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 1424

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1424
Court

High Court

The respondent was entitled to recover its actual costs of $4,950 rather than a 2B scale calculation greater than actual expenditure; the Consent Holder was not entitled to indemnity or uplifted costs because the appellant's appeal, while lacking merit and at times discursive, was not brought with flagrant or very unreasonable misconduct but reflected an elderly litigant‑in‑person's lack of legal familiarity; consequently the Consent Holder is awarded costs on scale 2B with an adjustment reducing the claimed preparation days to two.