N v M - [2014] NZSC 189

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
[2014] NZSC 189

BETWEEN

N
Applicant

AND

M
First Respondent

JACKSON RUSSELL
Second Respondent

RICHARD KEITH McLEOD HAWK
Third Respondent

SARAH PIERCE FITCHETT
Fouth Respondent

SC 120/2014

BETWEEN

N
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

Court:	McGrath, William Young and Glazebrook JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person R J Hollyman and A J B Holmes for the First Respondent
Judgment:	19 December 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application to file further submissions is declined.
BThe interlocutory application of 1 December 2014 is dismissed.
CCosts of $2,500 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr N has applied for leave to appeal against a number of decisions of the Court of Appeal.
In SC 120/2014, Mr N seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of Wild J in which he upheld the Court of Appeal Registrar’s decision not to supply requested information to Mr N.[1] The decision under appeal relates to one of a number of proceedings that have arisen from civil proceedings brought against Mr N in the District Court under the Harassment Act 1997. There are now appeals, and applications for leave to appeal, before the Court of Appeal in which both Mr N and Ms M challenge certain aspects of the judicial review of all the District Court decisions in the High Court.[2]
[1]NR v District Court at Auckland [2014] NZCA 514.
[2]NR v District Court at Auckland [2014] NZHC 1767 (Duffy J).
In SC 125/2014, Mr N seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal[3] dismissing an appeal against a judgment of Woodhouse J, which struck out Mr N’s proceedings for contempt.[4]In SC 77/2014, Mr N seeks leave to appeal against a pre-hearing direction by the Court of Appeal in that appeal.
[3]NR v M [2014] NZCA 526 (Harrison, Goddard and Cooper JJ).
[4]N v M [2014] NZHC 239.
This judgment concerns an interlocutory application filed by Mr N on 1 December 2014 for orders directing disclosure of litigation funding arrangements and debarring the lawyers for Ms M from acting.

Preliminary matter

The application filed by Mr N on 1 December 2014 was accompanied by a detailed memorandum in an appendix. An affidavit was also attached. Both these documents set out the reasons for his application.
On 5 December 2014, the Court issued a minute asking for brief submissions in reply from the respondents on or before 10 December 2014. Mr N was given until 12 December 2014 to file further submissions in reply to the respondents’ submissions.
In his further reply submissions Mr…

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 [2014] NZSC 189
Case: [2014] NZSC 189
Decision Date: 19 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, N, the applicant, has sought leave to appeal against multiple decisions of the Court of Appeal, which arose from civil proceedings against N in the District Court under the Harassment Act 1997. The applicants have challenged certain aspects of the judicial review of all the District Court decisions in the High Court. This appeal involves interlocutory applications filed by N for orders directing disclosure of litigation funding arrangements and debarring the lawyers for M from acting. The court was required to determine whether N's application was premature and if the disclosure of litigation funding arrangements was relevant to the proceedings.

The court found that the application was premature as it mirrored an application made in the Court of Appeal and that the appropriate time for such an application would be once leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is granted. The court also found that the disclosure of litigation funding arrangements was irrelevant in this case as M has been a defendant/respondent in all proceedings and has not pursued any monetary claim against N. Additionally, any litigation funding arrangements would be irrelevant to the application for leave to appeal and disclosure is not in the interests of justice.

The interlocutory application filed by N on 1 December 2014 was dismissed, and costs of $2,500 were to be paid by the applicant to M. The court found that N's applications were based on issues previously advanced and dismissed as meritless in the High Court, and therefore a 50 per cent uplift in costs was awarded. This decision serves as a reminder that interlocutory applications should not be made prematurely and that the disclosure of litigation funding arrangements may not be relevant in all cases.

Orders