Legal Research
Cases
Peterson v Mills

Peterson v Mills

Case [2025] NZCA 370 30 July 2025

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Administrative Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA631/2024
[2025] NZCA 370

BETWEEN	CARL JAMES PETERSON Appellant
AND	GRAHAM HOWARD MILLS Respondent

CA755/2024
BETWEEN	LYNETTE JOY MILLS Appellant
AND	GRAHAM HOWARD MILLS First Respondent
AND	BODEE OLIVER Second Respondent

CA822/2024
BETWEEN	CARL JAMES PETERSON Appellant
AND	GRAHAM HOWARD MILLS First Respondent
AND	OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE Second Respondent

CA854/2024
BETWEEN	LYNETTE JOY MILLS Appellant
AND	GRAHAM HOWARD MILLS Respondent

Hearing:	15 May 2025
Court:	Woolford, Jagose and Powell JJ
Counsel:	Appellants in person T J Conder and P Symonds for Respondent in CA631/2024 and CA854/2024 and First Respondent in CA755/2024 and CA822/2024 No appearance for Second Respondent in CA755/2024 No appearance for Second Respondent in CA822/2024
Judgment:	30 July 2025 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application to file further evidence is declined.
BAppeals CA631/2024, CA755/2024, CA822/2024, and CA854/2024 are struck out.
CThe application for an order under s 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 is declined.
DMs Mills and Mr Peterson must pay the respondent Mr Howard Mills costs on an indemnity basis, with the reasonable quantum of such costs to be fixed by the Registrar in the event the parties do not agree.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Powell J)

This judgment follows a hearing convened to determine whether appeals CA631/2024, CA755/2024, CA822/2024, and CA854/2024 (the present appeals), all brought by Carl Peterson, Lynette Mills, or Mr Peterson and Ms Mills jointly, should be struck out pursuant to r 44A(1)(c) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 (CACR), as abuses of this Court’s processes.
Specifically:
(a)CA631/2024 is an appeal by Mr Peterson against a decision of Associate Judge Lester adjudicating Mr Peterson bankrupt on 5 September 2024.[1]
(b)CA755/2024 is an appeal by Ms Mills against a decision of Radich J dated 4 November 2024 (the second Radich judgment).[2] The second Radich judgment stayed proceedings brought by Ms Mills in CIV‑2024‑441‑91 pending filing of an amended statement of claim which was to remove various allegations covered in previous proceedings such that only allegations made under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 could be pursued.
(c)CA822/2024 is an appeal brought by Mr Peterson against a decision of Grice J dated 19 November 2024.[3] The decision struck out proceedings brought by Mr Peterson in CIV‑2024‑441-95 pursuant to r 5.35B of the High Court Rules 2016 (HCR) on the basis that the issues raised have been covered in proceedings previously determined.
(d)CA854/2024 is an appeal brought against a decision of Gwyn J dated 29 November 2024.[4] Pursuant to r 5.35B of the HCR the decision struck out the CIV‑2024‑441‑91 proceedings previously stayed by Radich J after considering the amended statement of claim filed by Ms Mills pursuant to the second Radich judgment. Gwyn J concluded the amended statement of claim did not comply with the directions made by Radich J,[5] and “material aspects of the amended statement of claim either purport to relitigate earlier judgments or repeat or rely on aspects of…

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 Peterson v Mills

Details

AGLC: Peterson v Mills [2025] NZCA 370
Case: [2025] NZCA 370
Decision Date: 30 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the appeal hearings of CA631/2024, CA755/2024, CA822/2024, and CA854/2024 were consolidated for a hearing on 15 May 2025 to determine whether the appeals should be struck out as an abuse of process. The appeals were brought by Carl Peterson, Lynette Joy Mills, or jointly by Mr Peterson and Ms Mills, against decisions made by various High Court judges. The central issues were whether the appeals constituted an abuse of process by re-litigating issues that had already been determined by previous judgments and whether the appeals should be struck out under rule 44A(1)(c) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.

The Court concluded that the appeals were indeed an abuse of process as the issues raised had already been conclusively determined in previous litigation. The history of the litigation revealed that numerous claims had been brought by Mr Peterson and Ms Mills against Mr Howard Mills and others, culminating in a settlement deed. Subsequent claims were struck out as an abuse of process due to the settlement deed. Despite this, Mr Peterson and Ms Mills continued to bring further claims and appeals, seeking to re-litigate issues that had already been decided. The Court found this approach to be a clear abuse of process, as it contravened the principle of finality in judicial determinations. Consequently, the Court struck out all four appeals. Additionally, the Court declined to make any orders under section 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016, as such orders were not within the Court's jurisdiction.

In summary, the Court of Appeal struck out the appeals, declined the application to file further evidence, and dismissed the application for orders under section 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016. The appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs on an indemnity basis.

Orders