N v M

Case [2014] NZHC 239 21 February 2014

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE APPLICANT OR THE FIRST RESPONDENT PURSUANT TO S 39 OF THE HARASSMENT ACT 1997 AND FURTHER COURT ORDERS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-75 [2014] NZHC 239

BETWEEN N Applicant

AND M
First Respondent
JACKSON RUSSELL Second Respondent
RICHARD KEITH McLEOD HAWK Third Respondent
SARAH PIERCE FITCHETT Fourth Respondent

Hearing: 29 August 2013

Appearances: Applicant in person
R Hollyman and G Tompkins for the First Respondent
J Keating for the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents

Judgment: 21 February 2014

JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 February at 4:00 p.m. pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 1985.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
……………………………………

Counsel / Solicitors / Parties: Mr N
Mr R Hollyman, Barrister, Auckland
Mr C Browne / Mr G Tompkins, Wilson Harle, Solicitors, Auckland
Mr M Dennett / Ms J Keating, Kennedys, Solicitors, Auckland

N v M [2014] NZHC 239 [21 February 2014]

[1] Under s 39 of the Harassment Act 1997 and District Court orders, the names of the applicant and first respondent are not to be published. I will refer to the applicant as Mr N and to the respondent as Ms M. The second respondent, Jackson Russell, is a law firm that acted for Ms M. The third respondent, Mr Hawk, and the fourth respondent, Ms Fitchett, are, respectively, a partner and staff solicitor in Jackson Russell.

[2] In May 2012 Ms M commenced proceedings in the District Court under the Harassment Act against Mr N (the harassment proceeding). In July 2012 Mr N commenced a civil proceeding in the District Court against Ms M (the civil proceeding).

[3] In January 2013 Mr N applied to this Court for orders that the respondents be held in contempt of court in, or in connection with, the harassment proceeding and the civil proceeding (the contempt application). The respondents have applied for orders that the contempt application be dismissed, or stayed, or that specific orders sought in the contempt application be struck out. The principal grounds are that the application, or particular parts of it, cannot succeed, and that the application is frivolous, vexatious and otherwise an abuse of process.

The factual background

[4] In February 2012 Ms M was working as a prostitute in a brothel. Mr N had been a client for approximately two months. On 8 February, when Mr N was with Ms M at the brothel, a dispute arose. It is unnecessary to go into the detail. Ms M asked Mr N to leave. Following verbal exchanges and an attempt by Ms M to return money and a mobile phone to Mr N, which he refused to accept, Mr N left the brothel.

[5] Following this Ms M did not want to have any further contact with Mr N. He sought to make contact with her. This was rebuffed. Ms M contended that Mr N then did a number of things and this led to…

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] NZHC 239
Case: [2014] NZHC 239
Decision Date: 21 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

N commenced proceedings against M under the Harassment Act 1997, seeking a restraining order against N. M commenced a civil proceeding against N for damages, alleging breach of contract, defamation, breach of confidence, unjust enrichment, breach of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, breach of privacy, and malicious filing of proceedings. The District Court struck out the civil proceeding, and N appealed. N also made a number of other complaints to the New Zealand Law Society and various applications to the courts. N then applied to the High Court for contempt orders against M and others. M and others applied to have the contempt application struck out. The court considered the application and concluded that all of the complaints should be struck out. The complaints were either factually incorrect, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. The court also concluded that the proceeding was vexatious, an abuse of process, and a further attempt to victimise and harass M through litigation. The application for contempt orders was struck out in its entirety, and N was ordered to pay indemnity costs to M and others.

Orders