Judge says firm shouldn’t be exposed to expense of responding to claims
In a matter arising from a former couple’s separation proceedings, the New Zealand High Court denied the applicant ex-wife’s application to return her litigation rights in proceedings her ex-husband filed against the respondent law firm.
The case was Baker v Lane Neave [2026] NZHC 3378.
In the Baker proceedings, Lane Neave represented the ex-husband Mr Baker relating to claims under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015, the Property (Relationships) Act 1976, and the Contempt of Court Act 2019.
Mr King, a Lane Neave partner, had carriage of the proceedings on the firm’s behalf.
In proceedings against Mr King, the ex-wife Ms Baker alleged aggressive communication, failure to respond, acting in bad faith, the absence of full disclosure, conflicts of interest, misrepresentation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Mr King applied to strike out the proceedings against him. On 13 May 2026, the High Court granted the strike-out application upon determining that:
On 22 January 2026, Mr Baker commenced the present proceedings against Lane Neave.
On 12 February 2026, the High Court at Christchurch adjudicated Ms Baker as bankrupt. On 10 March 2026, the official assignee issued a disclaimer of property over Ms Baker’s litigation rights in the proceedings against the firm.
Under s 119(2) of the Insolvency Act 2006, Ms Baker sought an order for the delivery or vesting of her litigation rights in the Lane Neave proceedings back in her.
The High Court denied Ms Baker’s application for the vesting of her litigation rights back in her. The court directed that costs should follow the event.
The court added that Lane Neave, as the successful party, should not be exposed to the expense of needing to respond to Ms Baker’s claims if she pursued them, including by applications for strike-out, security for costs, or other interlocutory orders.
The High Court acknowledged that Ms Baker’s proposal to plead the tort of abuse of process amounted to a tangible cause of action. However, the court pointed out that she submitted no evidence to support that claim.
Apart from that claim, the court ruled that Ms Baker failed to assert tangible causes of action or potentially meritorious claims that she could have repleaded.
Agreeing with Lane Neave’s position, the court held that the issues Ms Baker had raised in the Lane Neave proceedings were not distinct from:
Noting Ms Baker’s history of making unmeritorious claims, the court saw a possibility that she would pursue the claims despite their lack of merit.
In a 28 August 2026 judgment, the Supreme Court of New Zealand denied a trustee’s application for leave to appeal that appeared to challenge a High Court judge’s extended restraint order under s 166(2) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 in favour of a body corporate.
The High Court of New Zealand issued a 24 July 2026 order placing the parent company of the Chance Voight group and five of its key subsidiaries into liquidation upon finding that the Rangiora-based group was insolvent and running an unsustainable business model.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest restructuring and insolvency law news on the main page!
