Ruling says permitting proceeding to continue would be unfair to respondent law firm
The Court of Appeal ruled that letting a claim proceed further would be manifestly unfair to the respondent law firm and would make right-thinking people believe the court had lost control of its processes.
In Tafua-Nicholl v Melanie Baker Law, [2025] NZCA 97, the underlying claim appeared to be rooted in Family Court proceedings. The appellant in this case then filed a statement of claim against the respondent, which was a family, property, and criminal law firm based in Lower Hutt, North Island.
In his claim, the appellant alleged that he lost almost six months of valuable time as a father after the firm defamed him in June 2024 to thwart a parenting-related deliberation. He also appeared to allege that the firm’s uninvestigated defamation thwarted the legitimacy of a parenting order made by a Family Court judge in July 2024.
The respondent law firm made no submissions because there had been no service of the appellant’s statement of claim upon it.
A High Court judge struck out the appellant’s proceeding under rule 5.35B of the High Court Rules 2016. The judge found the appellant’s statement of claim incomprehensible.
Under rule 5.35B, the court can strike out proceedings in situations where it would be manifestly unfair to require the respondents in the case to respond and where right-thinking people would conclude that the court would be exercising poor control over its processes if it would allow the matter to proceed further.
In the case of Te Wakaminenga o Nga Hapu Ki Waitangi v Waitangi National Trust Board, [2023] NZCA 63, the Court of Appeal considered a claim and said it should find abuse clear beyond doubt in that case.
In making that finding, the appeal court noted that rule 5.35B contemplated a situation involving the denial of a litigant’s fundamental right of access to the courts, with the possibility of the proceeding halting even before the service of the proceeding upon the litigant.
The appellant challenged the High Court judge’s decision. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand dismissed the appeal and made no cost order.
The appeal court first examined the appellant’s statement of claim and the supporting material that he filed. The appeal court then agreed with the High Court judge’s decision to strike out the appellant’s claim.
The appeal court agreed with the High Court judge’s characterisation of the appellant’s statement of claim as incomprehensible. The appeal court said the claim failed to disclose a recognisable cause of action such that the respondent law firm could meaningfully respond to it.
