NR v MR

Case [2014] NZHC 863 30 April 2014

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES OR ANY IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE PARTIES TO THIS PROCEEDING.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV2013-404-004701 [2014] NZHC 863

UNDER the District Courts Act 1947

BETWEEN

NR Appellant

AND

MR Respondent

Hearing: 5-6 March 2014

Appearances:

Appellant in person
R Hollyman and A Holmes for Respondent

Judgment:

30 April 2014

(RESERVED) JUDGMENT OF ANDREWS J

This judgment is delivered by me on 30 April 2014 at 4pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

..................................................... Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Solicitors/Counsel: Wilson Harle, Auckland
R Hollyman Barrister, Auckland A Holmes, Barrister, Auckland Copy to:
Appellant

NR v MR [2014] NZHC 863 [30 April 2014]

Contents
Introduction ..........................................................................................................[1]

Background...........................................................................................................[3]
Applications for orders under the Domestic Violence Act 1995 and the
Harassment Act 1997 .............................................................................................[8] The civil proceeding .............................................................................................[10] The contempt proceeding .....................................................................................[14]

The strike out judgment ....................................................................................[15] First cause of action: “Breach of contract, unjust enrichment, Prostitution Reform Act 2003” .............................................................................................................[16] Second cause of action: “Defamation Act 1992” ................................................[19] Third and fourth causes of action: “Malicious proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act and the Harassment Act” [24] Fifth cause of action: “Breach of confidence, breach of privacy” ......................[26] Sixth cause of action: “Consumer Guarantees Act 1993” ..................................[29] Alternative ground: frivolous and vexatious proceeding .....................................[32]

Approach on appeal ...........................................................................................[33]

Strike out principles ...........................................................................................[35]

First cause of action – breach of contract and unjust enrichment
The pleading .........................................................................................................[39]
The appellant’s submissions .................................................................................[41] The respondent’s submissions ..............................................................................[45] Discussion .................................................................................................................. (a) The mobile phone ......................................................................................[47] (b) The money..................................................................................................[52]

Second cause of action – defamation
The pleading .........................................................................................................[57]
The appellant’s submissions .................................................................................[59] The respondent’s submissions ..............................................................................[63] Discussion .................................................................................................................. (a) Statements in affidavit served on the appellant .........................................[66] (b) Statements in document given to the club manager ..................................[68] (c) Oral and email statements made to club managers ..................................[73]

Third and fourth causes of action – malicious civil proceedings
The pleading .........................................................................................................[75]
The appellant’s submissions .................................................................................[76] The respondent's submissions ..............................................................................[79] Is there a tort of malicious civil proceeding?.......................................................[80] Discussion .................................................................................................................. (a) The Harassment Act application ...............................................................[83] (b) The DVA application .................................................................................[85]

Alleged abuse of process ....................................................................................[91]

Fifth cause of action – breach of confidence and privacy
The pleading .........................................................................................................[95]
The appellant’s submissions .................................................................................[97]
The respondent’s submissions ..............................................................................[99]

Breach of confidence ..........................................................................................[101]
Breach of privacy ...............................................................................................[104]

Sixth cause of action - Consumer Guarantees Act claim
The pleading ....................................................................................................... [112]
The appellant’s submissions ............................................................................... [117] The respondent’s submissions ............................................................................ [119] Discussion ..........................................................................................................[120]

Result .................................................................................................................[123]

Introduction

[1] The appellant has appealed against a judgment of the District Court at Auckland, in which the Judge struck out the appellant’s pleadings in a proceeding filed in that Court (“the strike-out judgment”).1

[2] Orders have been made for the permanent suppression of the names of the appellant and the respondent, and of any particulars that may lead to their identification. Accordingly, the parties will be referred to in this judgment as “the appellant” and “the respondent”, and no details which could lead to their identification are included, or…

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] NZHC 863
Case: [2014] NZHC 863
Decision Date: 30 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the appellant against a judgment of the District Court at Auckland, in which the Judge struck out the appellant’s pleadings in a proceeding filed in that Court. The appellant alleged that he and the respondent were in a commercial relationship, the nature of which was that the respondent was a sex worker and provided commercial sexual services to her client, the appellant. On 8 February 2012, the appellant met the respondent at the club and paid her $240 for two hours of her services, and paid the club $190 for two hours room hire. During this period the appellant gave the respondent a mobile telephone, and the respondent opened the package to look at it. The respondent then became upset when she noticed the registration plate number of her car on the recent internet searches on the appellant’s own mobile telephone. The respondent asked the appellant to leave the club and he left shortly afterwards. The respondent attempted to return the payment for the additional hour for her services, and the mobile telephone, but the appellant refused to accept either. The events of 8 February 2012 are referred to as “the incident”. The appellant filed civil proceedings against the respondent in the District Court at Auckland, claiming breach of contract, defamation, breach of confidence and aggravated damages. The respondent filed an application to strike out the civil proceeding, on the grounds that it is an abuse of process. That application was heard in the District Court at Auckland on 21 August 2013, before Judge B A Gibson, and the strike-out judgment was delivered on 11 November 2013. The appellant filed his appeal to this Court from the strike-out judgment on 31 October 2013. The appeal was heard and the judgment delivered on 30 April 2014. The court held that the Judge did not err in holding that the appellant’s proceeding must be struck out as frivolous and vexatious. The appeal was dismissed and the respondent was entitled to an award of costs.

Orders