Smith v M�ori Land Court
Case
•
[2022] NZHC 1028
•12 May 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Smith v M�ori Land Court [2022] NZHC 1028
[2022] NZHC 1028
12 May 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of New Zealand was presented with a case brought by Bruce Winston Anderson Smith, among other parties, against the Māori Land Court and various other defendants. The plaintiffs sought judicial review of several decisions made by the Māori Land Court, the actions of certain members of the High Court registry, and decisions of the High Court itself. The defendants included the Māori Land Court, Sheriff John Earles, the High Court of New Zealand, the Māori Trustee/Te Tumu Paeroa, Clinton Hemana, and Kevin Smith.
The legal issues before the court centred on whether the plaintiffs' claims constituted an abuse of process, given the plaintiffs' history of litigation against the Māori Land Court and the High Court, and their attempts to challenge decisions that had already been conclusively determined. The court needed to determine whether the plaintiffs were attempting to reopen matters that had been previously decided and whether their allegations against the judges and lawyers involved in their case were appropriate.
The court found that the proceedings were indeed an abuse of process. The plaintiffs were attempting to challenge earlier court decisions with which they were dissatisfied, which is not permissible under the law. Additionally, the plaintiffs were making allegations of criminal conduct against the judges and lawyers involved, which was also deemed an abuse of process. The court struck out the plaintiffs' claims in their entirety, without giving the plaintiffs an opportunity to be heard, as they were satisfied that the proceedings were plainly abusive. The court also informed the plaintiffs of their right to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal without the need for leave, within 20 working days of the judgment being given.
The court's final orders included striking out the plaintiffs' claims in their entirety, providing the plaintiffs with a statement of their right to appeal the decision, and directing that the judgment be served on all named parties to the proceeding.
The legal issues before the court centred on whether the plaintiffs' claims constituted an abuse of process, given the plaintiffs' history of litigation against the Māori Land Court and the High Court, and their attempts to challenge decisions that had already been conclusively determined. The court needed to determine whether the plaintiffs were attempting to reopen matters that had been previously decided and whether their allegations against the judges and lawyers involved in their case were appropriate.
The court found that the proceedings were indeed an abuse of process. The plaintiffs were attempting to challenge earlier court decisions with which they were dissatisfied, which is not permissible under the law. Additionally, the plaintiffs were making allegations of criminal conduct against the judges and lawyers involved, which was also deemed an abuse of process. The court struck out the plaintiffs' claims in their entirety, without giving the plaintiffs an opportunity to be heard, as they were satisfied that the proceedings were plainly abusive. The court also informed the plaintiffs of their right to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal without the need for leave, within 20 working days of the judgment being given.
The court's final orders included striking out the plaintiffs' claims in their entirety, providing the plaintiffs with a statement of their right to appeal the decision, and directing that the judgment be served on all named parties to the proceeding.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Abuse of Process
-
Standing
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
McKenzie v ASB Bank Limited [2025] NZHC 1074
Cases Citing This Decision
6
McKenzie v ASB Bank Limited
[2025] NZHC 1074
HT v Family Court Registrar Kaikohe
[2024] NZHC 2999
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
0
Re McNab
[2018] NZHC 1817
Decision removed
[2021] NZHC 1670
Smith v Smith
[2022] NZHC 272