N v M - [2015] NZSC 15

NOTE: LOWER COURT ORDERS PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE APPLICANT AND THE FIRST RESPONDENT PURSUANT TO S 39 OF THE HARASSMENT ACT 1997 REMAIN IN FORCE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 77/2014
[2015] NZSC 15

BETWEEN

N
Applicant

AND

M
First Respondent

JACKSON RUSSELL
Second Respondent

RICHARD KEITH McLEOD HAWK
Third Respondent

SARAH PIERCE FITCHETT
Fourth Respondent

SC 120/2014

BETWEEN

NR
Applicant

AND

DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND
First Respondent

MR
Second Respondent

SC 125/2014

BETWEEN

NR
Applicant

AND

M
First Respondent

JACKSON RUSSELL
Second Respondent

RICHARD KEITH McLEOD HAWK
Third Respondent

SARAH PIERCE FITCHETT
Fourth Respondent

SC 3/2015

BETWEEN

NR
Applicant

AND

MR
First Respondent

JACKSON RUSSELL
Second Respondent

RICHARD KEITH McLEOD HAWK
Third Respondent

SARAH PIERCE FITCHETT
Fourth Respondent

DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND
Fifth Respondent

Court:	McGrath, William Young and Glazebrook JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person R J Hollyman and A J B Holmes for the First Respondent in SC 77/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015; and Second Respondent in SC 120/2014 J M Keating for the Second, Third and Fourth Respondent in SC 77/2014 and SC 125/2014 A Todd for the First Respondent in SC 120/2014 and Fifth Respondent in SC 3/2015
Judgment:	27 February 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The applications for leave to appeal in SC 77/2014, SC 120/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 are dismissed.
BThe application for recall of this Court’s judgment dated 19 December 2014 ([2014] NZSC 189) is dismissed.
CThe other interlocutory applications of 12 January 2015 are dismissed.
D Costs of $10,000 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M (as first respondent in SC 77/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 and second respondent in SC 120/2014).
ECosts of $2,500 are awarded to the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents in SC 77/2014 and SC 125/2014.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr N has four applications for leave to appeal before this Court and has also made a number of ancillary applications, including an application to recall our judgment of 19 December 2014.[1]

Background

[1]N v M [2014] NZSC 189.

The facts leading to the litigation were briefly set out by the Court of Appeal as follows:[2]
[Mr N] … was for some two months in an arrangement with Ms M … a sex worker, whereby she provided him with services in exchange for payments. In early 2012, Ms M terminated the arrangement.
[2]NR v M [2014] NZCA 526 (Harrison, Goddard and Cooper JJ) at [1].
The termination of the arrangement resulted in two proceedings in the District Court. First, Ms M applied for a restraining order against Mr N under the Harassment Act 1997 (the “harassment proceeding”).[3] In response, Mr N brought a civil claim against Ms M alleging breaches of contract, unjust enrichment, defamation, privacy, confidence, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (the “civil proceeding”).
[3]Ms M also made a without notice application for a protection order under the Domestic Violence Act 1995. However,…

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 N v M

Details

AGLC: N v M [2015] NZSC 15
Case: [2015] NZSC 15
Decision Date: 27 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed all four applications for leave to appeal brought by Mr. N. The appeals were related to various proceedings between Mr. N and Ms. M, including a harassment proceeding, a civil proceeding, and contempt proceedings. Mr. N sought leave to appeal decisions made by the Court of Appeal and the High Court, as well as the costs decisions made in those proceedings. In addition to the appeals, Mr. N sought to recall a previous Supreme Court judgment, adduce new evidence, and debar certain lawyers from acting in the proceedings.

The Court found that Mr. N's applications for leave to appeal had no tenable basis. The Court found that Mr. N had not demonstrated any error in the decisions of the Court of Appeal or the High Court, nor had he demonstrated any issue of general public importance. The Court also found that the applications for debarment and disclosure were an abuse of process, as they appeared to be part of a broader pattern of harassment of Ms. M. The Court dismissed the recall application, finding that no legitimate grounds had been raised for the recall of the previous judgment. The Court also dismissed the application to adduce new evidence, finding that it did not advance Mr. N's position.

The Court awarded costs against Mr. N, finding that his applications were an abuse of process. The Court awarded $10,000 in costs to Ms. M and $2,500 in costs to the Second, Third, and Fourth Respondents. The Court noted that some of Mr. N's applications appeared to have the same character as the contempt proceeding, which had been struck out as a further attempt to harass Ms. M through litigation.

Orders