NR v MR

Case [2014] NZCA 623 18 December 2014

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PERMANENTLY FORBIDDING PUBLICATION OF THE NAMES OR PARTICULARS LIKELY TO LEAD TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE APPELLANT OR THE FIRST RESPONDENT, PURSUANT TO S 39(1) OF THE HARASSMENT ACT 1997.

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

IN THE Court of appeal OF new Zealand

CA443/2014
CA465/2014
CA522/2014
CA532/2014
[2014] NZCA 623

BETWEEN	NR Appellant
AND	MR Respondent

CA460/2014

AND BETWEEN

NR
Appellant

AND

DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND
First Respondent

MR
Second Respondent

JACKSON RUSSELL
Third Respondent

CA461/2014
AND BETWEEN	NR Appellant
AND	DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND First Respondent MR Second Respondent

Hearing:	24 November 2014
Court:	French, Miller and Cooper JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in person No appearance for District Court at Auckland G Latimour and AJB Holmes for MR No appearance for Jackson Russell
Judgment:	18 December 2014 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe applications are dismissed.
BIn accordance with the views of the majority, NR must pay MR costs as for a standard application on a band A basis with a 50 per cent uplift, and usual disbursements. We certify for second counsel.
COrder permanently forbidding publication of the names or particulars likely to lead to the identification of the appellant or the first respondent, pursuant to s 39(1) of the Harassment Act 1997.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Miller J [1]
French and Cooper JJ [48]

MILLER J

NR has six appeals pending in this Court, all directed at the second respondent MR and all arising one way or another out of a harassment order that she obtained against him. They are to be heard together.
A seventh appeal, CA144/2014, has been dismissed. I will call it the contempt appeal.
The appeals and the lower court proceedings to which they relate are helpfully recorded in the attached flow chart.
This judgment responds to interlocutory applications by NR for orders directing disclosure of MR’s litigation funding arrangements and barring her solicitors, Wilson Harle and Mr Browne, and counsel, Messrs Hollyman and Holmes, from acting for her in the appeals. Having regard to the nature of the applications, independent counsel, Mr Latimour, appeared for MR.

Narrative

I need not survey the entire history of the litigation, but some narrative is needed to set the applications in context.
MR was a sex worker at an Auckland brothel where she worked under a false name. NR paid her for sexual services once a week for about two months. He became emotionally attached to her, but his feelings were not reciprocated and she refused his request that she make herself available exclusively to him.
On 8 February 2012 NR paid for three hours of MR’s services. While with her he gave her a mobile phone as a gift. He demonstrated the phone’s features using his own phone, inadvertently revealing that he had been searching her car’s registration number. She immediately insisted that he leave the premises, making it clear she…

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 NR v MR

Details

AGLC: NR v MR [2014] NZCA 623
Case: [2014] NZCA 623
Decision Date: 18 December 2014 at 11.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard appeals from NR against MR and the District Court at Auckland, with MR represented by independent counsel. NR, the appellant, sought orders for disclosure of MR's litigation funding arrangements and barring MR's solicitors and counsel from acting in the appeals. The appeals stem from a harassment order obtained by MR against NR, which led to NR launching several civil proceedings against MR, all of which were unsuccessful. The applications were dismissed by the Court.

The legal issues centered on whether the Court should compel disclosure of MR's litigation funding arrangements and whether MR's solicitors and counsel should be barred from acting in the appeals. The Court considered established principles on debarring counsel or solicitors and the relevance of litigation funding arrangements in legal proceedings.

The Court found that NR's allegations against MR's legal team, such as failures to cite relevant authorities and evidence, did not warrant removal as these matters are typically policed by the court or professional disciplinary bodies. The Court also held that the application for disclosure of litigation funding arrangements was without merit and not in the interests of justice. The Court concluded that NR's applications should not have been made, and they were accordingly dismissed. The Court further held that NR must pay MR's costs on a band A basis, uplifted by 50%, and usual disbursements. Lastly, the Court made an order permanently forbidding publication of the names or particulars likely to lead to the identification of the appellant or the first respondent, pursuant to s 39(1) of the Harassment Act 1997.

Orders