Peterson v Mills

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.