C. Horizon International Limited v Do Webs Limited
[2025] NZHC 2653
•30 September 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2024-404-524
[2025] NZHC 2653
BETWEEN C. HORIZON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
PlaintiffAND
DO WEBS LIMITED
Defendant
Hearing: 2 May 2025 Appearances:
D Marriot for the Plaintiff/Respondent T Hu for the Defendant/Applicant
Judgment:
30 September 2025
JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SUSSOCK
This judgment was delivered by me on 30 September 2025 at 4.45 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Solicitors/Counsel:
City Chambers, Auckland Harrison Stone Law, Auckland Zhang Law, Auckland
C. HORIZON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v DO WEBS LIMITED [2025] NZHC 2653 [30 September 2025]
Introduction
[1] The plaintiff, C.Horizon International Ltd (C.Horizon), has filed proceedings alleging that the defendant, Do Webs Ltd, blocked access to its website, refused to reinstate access to that website, and wrongfully terminated C.Horizon’s services under a contract for services. C.Horizon has pleaded three causes of action for breach of contract, conversion of its website, and misuse of confidential information.
[2] The defendant applies to strike out the first two causes of action on the basis that C.Horizon has advanced these two claims twice before in the Christchurch Disputes Tribunal. The first time C.Horizon’s claim was dismissed by the Disputes Tribunal because C.Horizon’s principal, Mr Suo Li, failed to appear at the hearing.1 The Disputes Tribunal declined C.Horizon’s request for a rehearing after making factual findings that Mr Li was aware of the date and the mode of hearing, yet failed to appear without excuse.2
[3] C.Horizon did not appeal the Disputes Tribunal’s decision but instead filed a second claim in the Disputes Tribunal. The Disputes Tribunal adjourned the hearing of the second claim part-heard because insufficient time had been allocated. The order issued recorded that the issues to be determined included whether the second claim was a duplication of the first and, if not, whether the claim would constitute a split claim.3 At the outset of the reconvened hearing, C.Horizon withdrew the claim. Four days later C.Horizon filed the present claim in the Auckland High Court.
[4] The defendant says that C.Horizon should not be allowed a third opportunity to have the first two causes of action heard and that they should be struck out as an abuse of process pursuant to r 15.1(1)(d) of the High Court Rules 2016.
[5] The plaintiff opposes strike out on the basis that there is no abuse of process as C.Horizon’s claims have not yet been tested or adjudicated upon by any Court, submitting:
1 Order of Disputes Tribunal, dated 26 July 2023, CIV-2023-009-745.
2 Result of Application for Rehearing, dated 13 November 2023, CIV-2023-009-745.
3 Order of the Disputes Tribunal, dated 30 November 2023, CIV-2023-009-2688.
(a)the first claim filed in the Disputes Tribunal was dismissed for want of prosecution, rather than being determined on its merits;
(b)the application for rehearing was dismissed, so the substantive claims were, again, neither heard nor determined; and
(c)the refiled claim was withdrawn prior to being heard or determined.
[6] In addition, the plaintiff submits that its claims in the Disputes Tribunal were formulated by the director, Mr Li, as a layperson without the benefit of legal advice and that the Disputes Tribunal had no jurisdiction to award the primary remedies sought by the plaintiff, which were injunctions.
[7] By contrast, the plaintiff says its claim filed in this Court has been substantially reformulated, having been prepared with the benefit of legal advice and representation. Counsel submits that, though arising from the same circumstances, the claim now differs materially in substance and legal effect from the claims filed in the Disputes Tribunal.
The plaintiff says further that there can be no detriment to the defendant as:
(a)the Disputes Tribunal would inevitably have had to remove the claim to the District Court;
(b)the plaintiff filed this High Court proceeding within the limitation period applicable to each of its claims;
(c)the proceeding will still continue regardless in respect of the plaintiff’s third cause of action;
(d)the defendant’s ability to respond to the claims before this Court has not been hampered by any delay or procedural irregularities arising from the Disputes Tribunal proceedings; and
(e)the defendant will benefit from the more particularised pleading of the plaintiff’s claims in this Court.
[9] In addition, the plaintiff says the interests of justice favour dismissal of the application to strike out as:
(a)the plaintiff has valid and meritorious claims that deserve to be heard and adjudicated upon;
(b)the defendant seeks to rely upon clearly evident confusion on the part of the plaintiff’s principal, Mr Li, regarding legal processes, and solely upon purely technical arguments in order to avoid being held liable to defend itself against those claims; and
(c)the defendant does not contend that the causes of action are not reasonably arguable.
[10] I set out the principles applying to strike out for abuse of process below before considering the facts of this case and whether it would be appropriate to make orders for strike out here.
Strike out for abuse of process
[11] The principles guiding the Court’s power to strike out all or part of a pleading are well settled.4 Rule 15.1(1) of the High Court Rules provides that the Court may strike out all or part of a pleading if it:
(a)discloses no reasonably arguable cause of action, defence, or case appropriate to the nature of the pleading; or
(b)is likely to cause prejudice or delay; or
(c)is frivolous or vexatious; or
(d)is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.
4 Attorney-General v Prince [1998] 1 NZLR 262 (CA) at 267; and Couch v Attorney-General [2008] NZSC 45, [2008] 3 NZLR 725 at [31]–[40].
[12] An application for strike out usually proceeds on the basis the facts as pleaded in the statement of claim are true, unless self-evidently speculative or false.5
[13] The final limb, abuse of process (r 15.1(1)(d)), is relied on in this case and captures all instances not dealt with in r 15.1(1)(a) to (c) relating to misuse of the Court’s process. The Court has the power to strike out proceedings for abuse of process either under r 15.1(1)(d) or in its inherent jurisdiction.6 Relitigating matters already determined,7 or bringing substantively the same proceeding “in a different garb”8 will amount to an abuse of process.
Factual background
[14] On 4 March 2021, the parties signed a “Project Quotation & Contract” dated 4 March 2021 (the Project Contract).
[15] The Project Contract recorded that Do Webs was to design and build an online shopping system for C.Horizon and provide training, hosting and maintenance services.
[16] Ruiyan Zhu deposes in his affidavit for the defendant that Do Webs built the e-commerce website for C.Horizon, linked the domain name getagate.co.nz to the website, and hosted the website on Do Webs’ server.
First Disputes Tribunal proceeding — CIV-2023-009-000745
[17] On 16 March 2023, C.Horizon filed a claim against Do Webs in the Disputes Tribunal, attaching a copy of the Project Contract and recording on the Disputes Tribunal claim form under the heading “What does the applicant claim happened?”:
Ruiyan Zhu's company Do Webs Limited has an agreement for developing a website for Suo Li’s company C.Horizon International Limited.
5 Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner [2013] NZHC 1853 at [13].
6 Bradbury v Judicial Conduct Commissioner [2014] NZCA 441, [2015] NZAR 1 at [100]–[105].
7 Grant v Attorney-General [2021] NZHC 1700 at [54].
8 Collier v Butterworths of New Zealand Ltd (1997) 11 PRNZ 581 (HC) at 586.
C.Horizon International Limited paid Do Webs Limited to maintain the website with a term for each two years from October 2021 to the end of September 2023 as the first term.
Ruiyan Zhu claimed he received an email from a third party claiming the third party owns the Trademark GETAGATE but without any official supporting documents from the third party. Ruiyan Zhu suspended the website from 8th February 2023 and changed the domain to gate.dowebs.co which we let him know we do not accept.
Ruiyan Zhu and his Company charged C.Horizon International Limited
$1007.4 and $552 to fix the website as he claimed he would change the domain and any logos of GETAGATE and marks [referring to] GETAGATE on our website to settle the dispute.
We would like the website back to work as soon as it could be so we paid Ruiyan Zhu and his company as he claimed. But Ruiyan Zhu he asked more money to do some other work he claimed before he remove the restraint he put it on our website requested Ruiyan Zhu to remove any restraint he put on our website or provide any official documents from the third party that we cannot use the trademark GETAGATE before he suspended our website but Ruiyan Zhu failed for that.
Ruiyan Zhu’s behaviour is blocked and is blocking our customers and driving them to some other supplier so we are losing thousands and thousands dollars each day and night.
Some of our customers are worrying if anything wrong happens to us so we are losing the confidence and trust from our customers which is damaging our reputation as the biggest gate supplier in South Island of New Zealand.
We are forced to work on a project to change our domain and the name of the business (From GETAGATE to another totally new name).
We will have to request Ruiyan Zhu and his company Do Webs Limited apology for his bad faith and behaviours and pay all the losses and costs from his behaviour.
[18] In addition to the 4 March 2021 Project Contract, the claim annexed the two invoices from Do Webs, mentioned above for $1,007.40 and $552 respectively.
[19] The claim form recorded that the amount that C.Horizon sought to be awarded was $30,000; the jurisdictional limit for the Disputes Tribunal.
[20] The matter was set down for hearing on 30 May 2023 by telephone but when the hearing commenced, Mr Li could not be heard properly.
[21] The Disputes Tribunal Referee, K Cowie, therefore adjourned the hearing, making orders that day stating:9
1.The hearing is adjourned to be continued by Referee Cowie for a full morning, in-person hearing, starting at 9.15am and ending by 1.00pm on a date to be notified to the parties in a notice of hearing.
2.A Mandarin interpreter is to be appointed for the hearing and to attend in person.
Reasons:
1.The hearing was set down to be heard by telephone conference. The interpreter, also attending by telephone, could not properly hear Mr Li, director of C.Horizon International Limited. Mr Li was very faint and said he was in his vehicle. Mr Zhu, director of Do Webs Ltd, could hear some of what Mr Li said, but not all of it. It is important that all parties can hear each other and therefore the matter is adjourned to be heard in person.
2.Mr Li emailed some additional evidence just as the hearing started. The adjournment also provides a sufficient opportunity to the parties to ensure that all evidence is exchanged and provided in advance of the continued hearing.
3.Any evidence either party seeks to rely upon in the hearing should be filed in the Disputes Tribunal as soon as possible, preferably not less than 10 days before the continued hearing and a copy provided to the other party at the same time. Any evidence a party wishes to attach to the Tribunal file is to be emailed to the Tribunal and sent to the other party. The pages must be numbered so that they can be easily located in the hearing.
4.If Mr Zhu intends to attend by telephone conference from Australia, it is to be by landline. Mr Zhu would need to make that arrangement with the case manager who will provide him with a phone number to directly call into the hearing room.
5.If either party has not received a notice of hearing advising them of the new hearing date by Friday 30 June 2023, they are to contact the Disputes Tribunal and keep in contact until they are informed of the date for the continued hearing.
[22] The case officer notified the parties of the new hearing date via letter on 31 May 2023. The letter is a single page and begins:
The hearing scheduled for 30th May 2023 has been adjourned by the Disputes Tribunal for the following reasons:
In-person hearing required.
9 Order of the Disputes Tribunal dated 30 May 2023, CIV-2023-009-745.
A copy of the Referee’s decision is enclosed for your information. You are required to adhere to any directions in the Referee’s decision.
[23] The letter then stated in a delineated box that the hearing had been adjourned to:
Wednesday 26th day of July 2023 at 9:15am
before the Disputes Tribunal at Christchurch District Court, Hearing Room A115, Level 1, 20 Lichfield Street. The hearing duration is estimated to be three hours and 45 minutes. Please ensure your attendance and arrive at least ten minutes before the start time. Please contact me if you have any queries. If you are intending to attend via telephone, please advise me and I will provide the contact phone number.
[24] Mr Li, on behalf of C.Horizon, failed to appear at the 26 July 2023 hearing. Mr Zhu appeared on Do Webs’ behalf and disputed the claim. Referee Cowie dismissed the claim, with the reasons recording:10
Reasons:
1.On 3 January 2021 Mr Li, director of C.Horizon International Limited (hereafter CHIL), entered into a written contract with Ironalike Limited, trading as Get-A-Gate, to purchase a Christchurch branch from the company that would service the South Island and trade under the name of Get-A-Gate. Mr Li failed to pay the agreed purchase price and Ironalike Ltd cancelled the contract. As a result of the cancellation, no further products would be supplied to CHIL and it was instructed to cease using the intellectual property belonging to Ironalike Ltd to elicit customers.
2.Mr Li engaged the services of Do webs Limited to set up a website using the domain name of On 23 January 2023 the solicitors for Ironalike Ltd wrote to Do Webs Ltd and advised that Ironalike Ltd owned the trademark “Get-A-Gate” and that no other entity had a licence to use that domain name. As it constituted an unauthorised use of an existing registered use of a domain name, Do Web Ltd were advised it was in breach of the Trade Marks Act 2022 and were advised to immediately shut down the domain.
3.Mr Zhu requested Mr Li provide him with a different domain name, but Mr Li refused and insisted that Do Webs Ltd keep using the domain name of getagate.
4.The effect of section 43 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 is that damages can be awarded against an entity that aids or abets another to enter into misleading or deceptive conduct in trade. Fearing that Do Webs Ltd could have a claim against it, as advised by the solicitors for lronalike Ltd, Mr Zhu shut down the domain name and waited for
10 Order of Disputes Tribunal, dated 26 July 2023, CIV-2023-009-745.
Mr Li to advise him of a new name. When Mr Li refused to provide an alternative name, Do Webs Ltd cancelled the contract with CHIL.
5.The hearing was set down to be heard in person. Mr Zhu and the interpreter were present, but no one appeared to represent C.Horizon International Limited. I called the matter a second time ten minutes later, and then again at 9.40am, but still no one was present to represent C.Horizon International Limited.
6.Mr Zhu, director of Do Webs Limited, disputed he owed any portion of the claim. As the applicant CHIL has not attended the hearing to pursue its claim, the claim is dismissed.
The rehearing
[25]On 14 August 2023, C.Horizon applied for a rehearing.
[26] On 10 November 2023, Referee Cowie declined C.Horizon’s application for a rehearing, confirming that the order of 26 July 2023 dismissing the claim stood.11 The Referee’s reasons summarised the background leading up to an adjournment order being sent to the parties on 31 May 2023 advising that the matter was set down for a full morning in-person hearing on 26 July 2023. The Referee then recorded:12
4.On 11 July 2023 Mr Li emailed the case manager and asked “can I apply to postpone the date for our hearing a bit later if I can? One of our fully registered trademarks certification will be issued at the end of July which I may use the certification as one evidence for our hearing. Please let me know if you have any questions”. On the following day the registrar confirmed receipt of Mr Li’s email and wrote “the Referee has directed: “The hearing will proceed as set down and advised to the parties. Mr Li can raise any issue of evidence he cannot obtain in that hearing”.
5.When the matter was called the interpreter attended and Mr Zhu phoned in on time, however, no one attended to represent C.Horizon International Limited. I checked the waiting area several times and also checked with the case manager if she had received any contact from Mr Li or if she was provided with any reason to explain his absence. She confirmed Mr Li had made no contact with the Tribunal. Twenty five minutes after the hearing was to start I checked again in case Mr Li was in the waiting room, however he was not. Mr Zhu disputed the claim and said that he considered it was a waste of time because it was unreasonable for C.Horizon International Limited to insist that he register a domain name that a solicitor had advised him was not available for C.Horizon International Limited to use and that proceedings would be brought against Do Webs Ltd if it infringed that intellectual property right.
11 Result of Application for Rehearing, dated 13 November 2023, CIV-2023-009-745.
12 At page 1.
6.I put out an order and dismissed the claim on 26 July 2023.
[27] Under the heading “Does [C.Horizon] have sufficient grounds that justifies the claim being heard afresh?”, the Referee records:
10.Under section 49 of the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988, a rehearing can be granted on terms the Tribunal thinks fit. In general, a party should show that there may be a miscarriage of justice that justifies a rehearing, taking into account prejudice to the other party and the need for an end to litigation.
11.Mr Li said he returned to China for one month from 8 July to 8 August 2023. Mr Li did not notify the case manager that he was not in the country, but after he arrived in China he requested an adjournment. Mr Li said he has other claims progressing through the Tribunal and so was confused about which case it was and thought he was requesting an adjournment for a different matter. However, that is not the case as in the email Mr Li referred to evidence of a registered Trade Mark certification that related to this hearing.
…
13.When Mr Li was emailed a copy of the order, he responded on 1 August to the case manager. He was not surprised the hearing had proceeded, but disagreed with the outcome and wanted to provide some additional evidence. He wrote in that email that “I was prepared to attend a physical court hearing”, but appeared to want the case manager to phone him to confirm it was proceeding. However, that contradicts the evidence provided by Mr Li that he was in China and not able to attend a physical court hearing. Further, it had already been confirmed to Mr Li in the 12 July email that the hearing was proceeding as set down and advised to him.
14.Mr Li considered that if he disagreed with the decision, as he did in this case, then he must always be able to challenge that, either by taking it to a higher court or having the matter re-heard. The fact Mr Li disagrees with the order is not a ground on which I could grant a rehearing of the claim, or otherwise a dispute would not come to an end.
15.Mr Zhu attended this hearing to determine the application for a re-hearing and considered it was unfair to him to have to have the matter set down for another hearing. He said it was made clear that the hearing was set down to be heard in person and he made himself available for that hearing.
16.Based on the reasons that Mr Li advanced, I find he has not shown that he has reasonable grounds on which the claim should be set down to start afresh before a new Referee. C.Horizon International Limited was provided with an opportunity to have its claim heard, and was provided with the date and that it was set down for a full morning hearing, but chose to not attend the hearing or advise the Tribunal in advance that it would not attend in person. Mr Li knew the hearing
was set down to be heard in person because without any reminder that it was in person, he wrote to the case manger on 1 August while he was still in China, that he was prepared to attend a physical court hearing, when he was not. Mr Li has been given an opportunity to be heard to represent C.Horizon International Limited but chose not to use that half day hearing set aside for that purpose. The application for a rehearing therefore is declined.
Second Disputes Tribunal claim — CIV-2023-009-002688
[28] On 22 September 2023, prior to the rehearing decision being issued, C.Horizon filed a second proceeding in the Disputes Tribunal. In this claim, NZ Ta Qin Ltd is named as an additional claimant, with Mr Li listed as NZ Ta Qin Ltd’s contact. Mr Li says this is because NZ Ta Qin Ltd also sold gates on getagate.co.nz.
[29] The second claim is described as a “new” claim on the claim form and again was seeking an award of $30,000. Under the heading “What does the applicant say happened?”, Mr Li recorded:
[Mr Zhu] sent us an email to terminate the hosting service for our website on 30 May 2023 but refused to transfer our fully paid website hosting to a new host, which got damage to our business. He did not reply to our request.
[30] The second claim again attached the Project Contract but also some further documents, including a copy of a “Service Termination Notice” sent by email from Do Webs to C.Horizon on 30 May 2023 and a timeline of contact between the parties prepared by Mr Li.
[31] On 9 October 2023, the second Disputes Tribunal claim was set down for a hearing by telephone on 30 November 2023 at 2 pm. Following that hearing, Referee Cowie (who had carriage of the first Tribunal Proceeding) made an order adjourning the hearing to an in-person, full-morning hearing on 8 March 2025, with her reasons recorded as follows:13
Reasons:
1.Insufficient time was allocated to hear from both of the parties and any witnesses they wanted to call. In addition, the parties may [wish] to provide additional evidence in support of their positions. Mr Li
13 Order of Disputes Tribunal, dated 30 November 2023, CIV-2023-009-2688.
should note that he has not provided the costs he incurred to set up the new website.
2.The issues to determine the claim are:
(i)Has this claim already been determined as an earlier claim filed under CIV 2023-009-000745, and if not, would this claim constitute a split claim? If not, then the following issues must be resolved:
(i)Who was the party that engaged Do Webs Limited services?
(ii)When Do Webs Limited cancelled the contract, what was C. Horizon International Limited entitled to remain in possession of?
(iii)What loss can C. Horizon International Limited prove it has incurred that it is entitled to be compensated for?
3.Any evidence either party seeks to rely upon in the hearing should be filed in the Disputes Tribunal as soon as possible, preferably not less than 7 days before the continued hearing and a copy provided to the other party at the same time. Any evidence a party wishes to attach to the Tribunal file is to be emailed to the Tribunal and the other party is to be copied into that same email so that it is evident they have been provided with a copy of the information. The pages must consecutively numbered so that they can be easily located in the hearing.
[32] At the outset of the hearing, Mr Li, as director of both C.Horizon and NZ Ta Qin Ltd, requested that the second claim was withdrawn. Referee Cowie therefore issued an order on 8 March 2024 recording “[t]he claim is withdrawn at the direction of the applicant”.14
High Court claim
[33] On 12 March 2024, four days after withdrawing the second claim in the Disputes Tribunal, the plaintiff filed its claim in the High Court. The claim again relies on the 4 March 2021 Project Contract, with the first two causes of action being for breach of that contract and for conversion of the website. The pleaded breaches of contract are particularised as being:
14 Order of Disputes Tribunal, dated 8 March 2024, CIV-2023-009-2688.
21.1Removal of the ability of the plaintiff to run the plaintiff’s e-commerce website from the domain name since at least 10 February 2023;15
21.2failure to reinstate access to the plaintiff's e-commerce website in any form from 10 February to 21 February 2023;16 and
21.3failure to allow the plaintiff to access or operate using the plaintiff’s e-commerce website from 1 July 2023.
[34]The losses claimed are particularised as follows:
22.1Loss of sales, loss of custom and diminution of goodwill as a result of the denial of service from 10 February to 21 February 2023;17
22.2Loss of sales, loss of custom and diminution of accrued goodwill in the plaintiff's GETAGATE brand as a result of the forced change of domain name and removal of GETAGATE branding from 21 February 2023;18
22.3Additional costs invoiced by the defendant in relation to the reinstatement using the URL of $4,226.00;
22.4Loss of sales, loss of custom, interruption of business growth and diminution of goodwill in the plaintiff's gate business as a result of the denial of access to the plaintiff’s e-commerce website from 1 July 2023;19
22.5Costs incurred in developing the temporary e-commerce website
$5,740.00; and
22.6Ongoing losses as a result of the reduced functionality and/or inferior customer experience of the temporary website.
[35] The relief sought includes damages of $9,305.00 plus an enquiry into damages suffered as a result of the denial of service and forced migration, and as a result of the denial of access to the plaintiff’s e-commerce website. In addition, an injunction is sought to compel the defendant to facilitate or enable the migration of the plaintiff’s website to a website hosting of the plaintiff’s choosing.
[36]The particulars of the second cause of action for conversion are as follows:
23.1the Project Contract confirms that the plaintiff’s e-commerce website is and remains the property of the plaintiff alone;
15 This was incorrectly pleaded as 10 February 2021.
16 This was incorrectly pleaded as 21 February 2021.
17 Counsel advised during the hearing that these dates ought to be 2023 rather than 2021.
18 As above at n 9.
19 As above at n 9.
23.2the defendant has acted inconsistently with the rights of the plaintiff in the plaintiff’s e-commerce website, by failing or refusing to:
(i)permit or facilitate the plaintiff to transfer the plaintiff’s e- commerce website to another hosting provider;
(ii)permit or allow the plaintiff or any other person to access the plaintiff’s e-commerce website or its design, data or content.
[37]The particulars of loss in the second cause of action are pleaded as follows:
21.1Loss of sales, loss of custom, interruption of business growth and diminution of goodwill in the plaintiff’s gate business as a result of the denial of access to the plaintiff’s e-commerce website from 1 July 202[3]; and
21.2Costs incurred in developing the temporary e-commerce website
$5,740.00.
[38] The relief sought includes damages of $5,740.000 and an enquiry into damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the denial of access to the plaintiff’s e-commerce website, again together with an injunction to facilitate/enable migration of the plaintiff’s website to a new host.
Should the first and second causes of action be struck out for abuse of process?
[39] The first claim filed in the Disputes Tribunal is in respect of the same contract, the Project Contract, and the same breaches of that contract that are now the subject of the first two causes of action in the High Court proceeding.
[40] The plaintiff says that its first claim did not relate to the refusal of the defendant to transfer its website back to it—only its second claim did, and that claim was withdrawn. I accept that the fact that the second claim was withdrawn means that claim itself does not prevent a further claim being brought. But the letter terminating the contract was sent prior to the date of the hearing to which the first claim was adjourned. The termination letter recorded:
I hereby inform you that Do Webs Limited will no longer offer any services to C.Horizons International Ltd as of 1 July 2023.
All services between Do Webs Limited and C.Horizon International Limited (including the website and website related services, 0800 toll free services, etc.) will end on 30 June 2025.
The attached tax invoice is the final invoice for website addressfinder services and 0800 toll free services of June 2023. Please make sure to pay the invoice on time.
Please ensure that you make the necessary back ups by 30 June 2023 on your own.
Please note: from 1 July 2023, you will no longer be able to access any services provided by Do Webs Limited, any data not backed up will be lost.
[41] The description of the first claim filed by the plaintiff was broad enough to raise the termination letter. The termination and refusal of the defendant to transfer its website back could therefore have been raised, had Mr Li attended the hearing.
[42] The plaintiff focused on the fact that the merits of the claim had not been determined and that the relief sought in this Court as a result of the denial of access to the plaintiff’s e-commerce website was an injunction to facilitate/enable migration of the plaintiff’s website to a new host.
[43] Section 23 of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 expressly provides that “every order made by the Tribunal under section 18(8)”, which includes an order dismissing a dispute,20 shall be “final and binding on all parties… and, except as provided in section 50, no appeal shall lie in respect of any such order”.
[44] Section 50 relevantly provides a confined right of appeal against an order of the Disputes Tribunal only on the grounds that the proceedings were conducted by the Referee in a manner that was unfair to the appellant and prejudicially affected the result of the proceedings. Appeals are required to be brought within 20 working days of the making of the order appealed against, or within such further time as a District Court Judge may allow.21 There is no right of second appeal to the High Court.22
[45] As set out above, following the dismissal of C.Horizon’s first claim in the Disputes Tribunal, C.Horizon applied for a rehearing. This was declined and the dismissal of the claim was confirmed. This first decision was not challenged. The
20 See Disputes Tribunal Act 1988, ss 18(5) and (8), and 19(1)(g).
21 Section 50(2).
22 Mellow v Tsang [2004] NZAR 537 (HC) at [24].
second claim was then filed in the Disputes Tribunal, but was withdrawn before any final orders were made.
[46] The plaintiff emphasises that the first two causes of action have not yet been determined on their merits. However to allow a party to proceed with essentially the same claim in the High Court because its claim has been dismissed but not on the merits, would be to allow that party to circumvent the clear statutory scheme in the Disputes Tribunal Act, which provides for only one appeal and only on confined grounds. The primary objective of the Disputes Tribunal is to provide a quick, inexpensive, and less formal way to resolve disputes, particularly those involving small claims or personal disputes. Once a party has decided to use the Disputes Tribunal to determine its claim, it cannot then bring its claim again in an alternative forum if it does not like the result.
[47] As Associate Judge Bell held in Auckland Electrical Solutions Ltd v Warrington, referring to a plaintiff’s attempt to bring a claim in the District Court while that same claim was being dealt with by the Disputes Tribunal:23
The finality of Disputes Tribunal decisions is recognised under s 23 of the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988. It is not open to Auckland Electrical Solutions Ltd to begin a fresh proceeding in the District Court when the dispute is pending in the Disputes Tribunal. And the Disputes Tribunal’s final decision on the merits means that the fresh proceeding offends against the principle of res judicata. Its proceeding is also an abuse of process. I regard it as inevitable that the District Court would strike out the proceeding as an attempt to relitigate matters which are the subject of a final decision between the same parties.
[48] While, in the present case, the claims are not before both this Court and the Disputes Tribunal simultaneously as they were in Auckland Electrical Solutions Ltd, I consider that allowing the claim to proceed in this Court after a final decision has been issued by the Disputes Tribunal would similarly offend against the principle of res judicata and undermine the scheme of the Disputes Tribunal Act.
[49] Any complaint that the claim should not have been dismissed, including because the plaintiff was not able to raise the termination letter, would be a matter for
23 Auckland Electrical Solutions Ltd v Warrington [2017] NZHC 366 at [13].
appeal but cannot justify allowing a claim which has been dismissed in the Disputes Tribunal to proceed in this Court. As noted above appeals must be brought within 20 working days of the order appealed against or “within such further time as a District Court Judge may on application allow”.24
[50] There may still therefore be an ability to appeal the Disputes Tribunal’s decision to dismiss the first claim if leave is granted. Even if it is not, however, that would not provide a basis for the first two causes of action to continue in this Court. The right to challenge the decision of the Disputes Tribunal must be determined in the context of the statutory scheme applying to the Disputes Tribunal and not simply by a party filing a new proceeding in this Court.
[51] The plaintiff submits that the Disputes Tribunal had no jurisdiction to award the principal remedy that the company seeks, being the reinstatement of access to its e-commerce website to continue in business. The original claim in the Disputes Tribunal did not seek an injunction but, as submitted by the defendant, the Disputes Tribunal has the power under s 19(1)(c) of the Disputes Tribunal Act to order a party to deliver specific property to another party in the proceeding, which is likely to have been sufficient.
[52] The plaintiff responds that what is sought in the High Court is a mandatory injunction to assist and permit migration to a third-party host of the website, so it is not simply the delivery up of specific property.
[53] However, if the Disputes Tribunal had considered that it did not have jurisdiction to grant the relief sought, the claim could have been transferred on that basis. To allow the causes of action to proceed in the High Court now, simply because the plaintiff now seeks a remedy that may not have been available in the Disputes Tribunal, would, again, be to allow parties readily to circumvent the statutory scheme. I do not, therefore, consider that this provides a proper basis for allowing the first two causes of action to proceed.
24 Disputes Tribunal Act 1988, s 50(3).
[54] Finally, I record that I have considered whether any part of the first and second causes of action ought to survive strike out on the basis that the plaintiff may have suffered ongoing loss. But that cannot justify allowing the claims to proceed in this Court when the issues in dispute have already come before the Disputes Tribunal. Any remedy that the Disputes Tribunal may have awarded would have taken ongoing loss into account.
[55] I therefore conclude that the first and second causes of action ought to be struck out for abuse of process.
Result
[56] The application for strike out of the first two causes of action in this proceeding is granted.
Costs
[57] The defendant has succeeded and so is entitled to costs. I ask the parties to confer and, only if costs cannot be agreed, to file memoranda of no more than three pages (excluding schedules), on behalf of the defendant by 21 October 2025 and the plaintiff by 4 November 2025.
Associate Judge Sussock
0
5
1