Mills v Howard-Mills - [2024] NZHC 3241

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CIV-2024-441-91

[2024] NZHC 3241

BETWEEN
LYNETTE JOY MILLS

Plaintiff

AND

GRAHAM HOWARD-MILLS

First Defendant

BODEE OLIVER

Second Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

Plaintiff self-represented

Judgment:

4 November 2024

JUDGMENT OF RADICH J

[1] On 14 October 2024, Ms Mills filed this proceeding in which a range of remedies are sought in relation to the sale and purchase of a property in 2015. A Registrar has referred the proceeding to me under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016 on the basis of a belief that, on the face of the proceeding, it is plainly an abuse of the process of the Court.

[2] If, in terms of r 5.35B, I am satisfied that the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the Court, then I may, of my own initiative, make an order or give directions to ensure that the proceeding is disposed of or, as the case may be, proceeds in a way that complies with the rules including an order under r 15.1, that the proceeding be struck out or stayed.

MILLS v HOWARD-MILLS [2024] NZHC 3241 [4 November 2024]

[3] On 18 March 2024, I gave a judgment striking out, under r 5.35B, a related proceeding on the basis that the proceeding then in question was plainly an abuse of process.

[4] The allegations in this proceeding overlap with allegations in the earlier proceeding. However, new elements are introduced and different defendants have been cited. The issue that arises is whether, in those circumstances, orders should be made under r 5.35B in relation to this proceeding also.

[5] As discussed in my 18 March 2024 decision, the powers in r 5.35B reflect the Court’s inherent power to prevent its procedures from being misused.1 It is not a power that should be used in cases where it may later be shown that a cause of action is untenable, factually or legally, particularly where it is too early in the process to determine factual and legal issues in a case clearly. Rather, the power is there to enable proceedings that are clearly an abuse to be struck out or stayed at the get-go. To be an abuse at this stage of the process, the proceeding must, for example, be an improper use of the Court’s procedures to an extent as to bring the administration of justice into disrepute or a proceeding that is brought, for example, for some ulterior or improper purpose.

[6] The broad public interest and the private interests of individuals who may otherwise be drawn into an entirely unmeritorious proceeding are to be considered and must be weighed against the right of a litigant to bring proceedings.2

[7] As I mentioned in my March decision, it will be an abuse of process if a plaintiff endeavours to relitigate claims that have been determined already, including through a proceeding that brings a collateral challenge to claims…

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.

Continue reading Mills v Howard-Mills

Details

AGLC: Mills v Howard-Mills [2024] NZHC 3241
Case: [2024] NZHC 3241
Decision Date: 4 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lynette Joy Mills initiated proceedings against Graham Howard-Mills and Bodee Oliver, seeking various remedies related to the sale and purchase of a property in 2015. The case was referred to the High Court of New Zealand by a Registrar, who believed that the proceeding appeared to be an abuse of the Court's process. The Court was required to decide whether the proceeding constituted an abuse of process and, if so, what orders should be made under rule 5.35B of the High Court Rules 2016.

The Court examined the nature of the proceeding and considered whether it was an abuse of process. The proceeding overlapped significantly with an earlier proceeding that had already been determined, and the plaintiff sought to relitigate claims that had been previously struck out. The Court noted that the proceeding involved new allegations under the Climate Change Response Act 2002, but these were intertwined with the old allegations and were not the primary focus. The Court found that the proceeding was an abuse of process as it aimed to relitigate claims that had already been decided and involved improper purposes, such as attempting to vacate previous judgments.

The Court decided to stay the proceeding under rule 5.35B(2)(b) of the High Court Rules 2016, pending the plaintiff filing an amended statement of claim that removed the allegations relitigation of the old claims. The stay would remain in effect until the Court considered the amended statement of claim. The Court also clarified that it had no jurisdiction to vacate previous decisions or prospective decisions of the Court of Appeal. The plaintiff had the right to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal under section 56 of the Senior Courts Act 2016.

The Court issued an order staying the proceeding until an amended statement of claim was filed. The plaintiff was required to file the amended statement of claim that focused solely on the new allegations under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 and excluded the relitigation of previous claims. The stay would be discharged by the Court upon consideration of the amended statement of claim. The decision was served on the defendants, and the plaintiff had the right to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal.

Orders