Forster v Body Corporate 68792 - [2025] NZHC 980

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2025-485-147 [2025] NZHC 980

BETWEEN
CISCA FORSTER

First Plaintiff

LINK TRUST NO 1
Second Plaintiff

AND

BODY CORPORATE 68792

First Defendant

PETER MARTENS (SYNERGY ENTERPRISES LIMITED)

Second Defendant

JAMES McKERNAN
Third Defendant

DAVID GERARD DEWAR

Fourth Defendant

STEVEN SCHECKTER (SCHECKTER FAMILY TRUST)

Fifth Defendant

HUGH & LIZ MIDDLETON
Sixth Defendant

FIONA MARION GILLESPIE

Seventh Defendant

CIV-2025-485-148

BETWEEN

CISCA FORSTER

First Plaintiff

LINK TRUST NO 1

Second Plaintiff

AND

ROBERT GARY NAYLOR

First Defendant

CISCA FORSTER v BODY CORPORATE 68792 & ORS [2025] NZHC 980 [28 April 2025]

BODY CORPORATE 68792
Second Defendant

HIGH COURT WELLINGTON
Third Defendant

DAVID GERARD DEWAR
Fourth Defendant

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Fifth Defendant

CIV-2025-485-149

BETWEEN

CISCA FORSTER

Plaintiff

AND

BODY CORPORATE 68792

First Defendant

ANTHONY GAMBITSIS

Second Defendant

GAMBITSIS CROMBIE LIMITED

Third Defendant

ROY BASSETT BURR

Fourth Defendant

DAVID GERARD DEWAR

Fifth Defendant

ALWYN O’CONNOR
Sixth Defendant

STEPHEN IORNS

Seventh Defendant

Hearing: On the Papers

Appearances

Applicant in Person

Judgment:

28 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

[1] On 8 December 2024, Ms Cisca Forster sought to file three proceedings. Ms Forster is named as the first plaintiff, as trustee of the Link Trust No 1 (the Link Trust). The Link Trust is Mr Harry Memelink’s family trust, and he is a beneficiary of it.1 The Link Trust is named as second plaintiff in two of the proceedings. Each statement of claim names several defendants. Ms Forster has also filed an affidavit in each proceeding, although the content of each affidavit appears to be identical.

[2] The Registrar has referred the proceedings to me under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016 (the Rules) on the basis of a belief that, on their face, they are plainly an abuse of the process of the Court.

[3] The three proceedings can be considered together as they each relate to issues connected to Body Corporate 68792 (the Body Corporate). The Body Corporate is responsible for a multi-unit commercial premises in Lower Hutt. The defendants named are all parties who are connected in some way with litigation between Ms Forster and Mr Memelink, on the one hand, and the Body Corporate or persons associated with it, on the other.

The statements of claim

[4] The statements of claim are wide-ranging in the parties joined as defendants and in the allegations made. I endeavour to describe the defendants and the key elements of the claims below.

[5] In the CIV-2025-485-147 proceeding (Martens), claims are made against officers of the Body Corporate and Mr Dewar as solicitor for the Body Corporate. It is alleged that the defendants have breached their duties of care to the Body Corporate and breached the requirements of the Unit Titles Act 2010. It is also alleged that “the plaintiff’s voting rights and rights to chair the Body Corporate” have been “hijacked” and “blocked”. Some of the statement of claim appears to have been copied from

1 Body…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Forster v Body Corporate 68792 and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 980
Decision Date: 28 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, considered three related proceedings brought by Cisca Forster, as trustee of the Link Trust No 1, against various defendants connected to the Body Corporate 68792. The defendants included officers of the Body Corporate, solicitors, and others associated with the litigation between Ms Forster, Mr Harry Memelink, and the Body Corporate. The Registrar referred the proceedings to the Court on the basis that they appeared to be an abuse of the Court's process. The claims in the statements of claim were wide-ranging and included allegations of breaches of duties, fraud, and misleading the Court. The relief sought included "global damages," reimbursement for unapproved levies, and setting aside previous judgments. The Court considered whether the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process under the High Court Rules 2016. The statements of claim were found to be overlapping and repetitive of claims that had already been determined by the Court. The Court held that it would be manifestly unfair to require the defendants to respond to these claims and that allowing the proceedings to continue would be perceived as poor control over the Court's processes. Consequently, the pleadings were struck out and the proceedings dismissed. The decision noted that Ms Forster had the right to appeal and directed the Registrar to provide a copy of the decision to the defendants.

Orders