New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Vexatious proceedings

Legal area

Court

1 Sept 2023

YOUNG v ROSS [2023] NZCA 411

Citation

[2023] NZCA 411
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for leave to bring a second appeal was declined because the proposed ten points did not raise any question of law or fact capable of bona fide and serious argument of sufficient importance to justify a second appeal; the Court endorsed the High Court's analysis that the matters were private, lacked broader public importance, and the strike-out findings below were not suitable for re-litigating on a second appeal.
17 Aug 2023

McCULLAH v DE HEK [2023] NZHC 2230

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2230
Court

High Court

The Court inferred from the speed of discontinuance, pre-litigation and post-filing correspondence, the excessive damages pleaded, and supporting evidence of a coordinated campaign that the plaintiff never intended to take the proceedings to trial; the proceedings were therefore vexatious under s45 Defamation Act and r14.6(4)(a) High Court Rules, justifying an award of indemnity costs, but the claimed actual costs were reduced to a reasonable sum of NZD 27,500 after comparison with scale and assessment of reasonableness.
17 Feb 2023

D (SC 126/2022) v RMC [2023] NZSC 6

Citation

[2023] NZSC 6
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeals were without merit and hopeless: the underlying tort claims were legally untenable and appeared vexatious, the procedural defects (deemed abandonment for failure to provide security for costs) showed no material change of circumstance to justify an extension of time, and the matters raised lacked general or public importance and did not risk a miscarriage of justice.
17 Jun 2020

BUTCHER v NEW ZEALAND SERIOUS FRAUD SQUAD & ANOR [2020] NZCA 242

Citation

[2020] NZCA 242
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time declined because the delay was unexplained, the applicant failed to place the High Court material before the Court or address merits as required for an extension, the proposed relief was not plainly available on judicial review (would improperly seek to direct prosecuting authorities), and respondents would suffer prejudice by incurring costs responding to a misconceived appeal.
13 May 2020

LIU v CUTTING [2020] NZHC 974

Citation

[2020] NZHC 974
Court

High Court

The District Court recall and costs decisions were separate and gave rise to legitimate rights of appeal, so the appeals were not vexatious or an abuse of process; indemnity costs were therefore inappropriate; however, on withdrawal the respondent was the successful party and was entitled to costs on a Category 2B basis and disbursements, and the security for costs paid into Court was to be paid out to the respondent.
24 Aug 2017

CORRICK v SILICH [2017] NZHC 2033

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2033
Court

High Court

The Court refused indemnity costs but awarded costs to the first to fifth defendants on the 2B band increased by 50% because the plaintiffs' pleadings and conduct caused unnecessary steps and meritless arguments warranting uplift under r 14.6(3); however the conduct did not meet the threshold for indemnity under r 14.6(4). Items 20 and 21 (discovery and inspection) are to be assessed on 2A and defendants may recover preparation costs for the vacated trial under item 33; plaintiffs' set-off arguments and GST position were not accepted or proven.
29 Aug 2016

WAXMAN v CROUCH [2016] NZHC 2004

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2004
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the District Court's refusal to grant a restraining order because the respondent's conduct, viewed in context, did not satisfy the statutory definition of harassment (no pattern of at least two specified acts causing a reasonable fear for safety) and would not cause a reasonable person in the applicant's circumstances sufficient distress to justify a restraining order; however, the finding that the applicant's proceedings were vexatious and the consequent award of indemnity costs was quashed because the applicant honestly believed she was being harassed and did not exhib…
4 Mar 2016

SIEMER v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2016] NZCA 43

Citation

[2016] NZAR 411
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held s 88B of the Judicature Act 1908 covers judicial review and encompasses proceedings that become vexatious through their conduct as well as those vexatious at inception; the High Court erred by not consulting counsel on the scope of its qualified list-based order and by failing to protect unrelated prospective defendants; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the cross-appeal allowed by quashing the High Court order and replacing it with a general order requiring the appellant to obtain leave of the High Court before commencing or continuing any proceeding in the Hig…
19 Mar 2015

FIFIELD v ROTORUA DISTRICT COUNCIL CA547/2014 [2015] NZCA 77

Citation

[2015] NZCA 77
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time refused because the applicant displayed a pattern of lengthy and unexplained delay (including a 16-month delay to file the application), failed to identify any question of law as required by s 214, and the proceedings were properly characterised as vexatious and would be oppressive to the former employer; therefore it was not in the overall interests of justice to grant an extension under r 29A.
5 Feb 2015

RAFIQ V THE COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE CA669/2014 [2015] NZCA 8

Citation

[2015] NZCA 8
Court

Court of Appeal

The Registrar correctly applied legal principles: impecuniosity alone does not justify dispensing with security for costs, there were no exceptional circumstances or significant public interest, and the appeal was vexatious and hopeless, so refusal to dispense and the requirement to pay $5,880 for security are upheld.